Hide table of contents

Update 4th Dec 2023:

It currently looks like Spiro is on track to fill our fundraising budget for the year. Our heartfelt thanks to people who've reached out or donated already. <3

If you haven't been in touch already and were considering donating, you might like to check out other new Charity Entrepreneurship supported charities such as https://www.clearsolutions.global/ or https://lafiyanigeria.org/ 

And please do keep an eye out as we if things go well we will hopefully be fundraising again next year to expand!

Summary 

Note: You can't give to Spiro as part of the donation election, if you'd like to donate to Spiro, see details in the donations section below.

We (Roxanne Heston and Habiba Banu - formerly Habiba Islam!) have launched Spiro, a new TB screening and prevention charity focused on children. Our website is here.

We are fundraising $198,000 for our first year. We’re currently reaching out to people in the EA network. So far we have between 20%-50% of our budget promised and fundraising is currently one of the main things we’re focusing on.

The major components of our first year budget are co-founder time, country visits, and delivery of a pilot program, which aims to do household-level TB screening and provision of preventative medication.

We think that this project has a lot of promise:

  • Tuberculosis has a huge global burden, killing 1.3 million people every year, and is disproportionately neglected and fatal in young children.
  • The evidence for preventative treatment is robust and household programs are promising, yet few high-burden countries have scaled up this intervention.
  • Modeling by Charity Entrepreneurship and by academics indicate that this can be competitive with the best GiveWell-recommended charities.

If we don’t manage to raise at least half of our target budget by the beginning of December 2023 then we’ll switch from our intended focus for the next month from program planning to additional fundraising. This will push out our timelines for getting to the useful work.

If we don’t manage to raise our full target budget by the end of 2023 then we’ll scale back our ambitions in the immediate term, until we put additional time into fundraising a few months later. The lower budget will also limit the size of our proof-of-concept effort since we and our government partners will need to scale back work to the available funds.

You can donate directly via our Cornerstone page - best for most countries.

You can alternately donate via Giving What We Can’s fund for charities incubated through Charity Entrepreneurship - best for the UK and the Netherlands. Please also email habiba.banu@spiro.ngo letting us know how much you have donated if you donate this way, so that we can identify the funds and allocate them to Spiro.

For large donations please get in touch so we can share details for the most efficient donation method.

Who are we?

Spiro is co-founded by Habiba Banu and Roxanne Heston.

Habiba worked for the last three years at 80,000 Hours and before that as Senior Administrator at the Future of Humanity Institute and the Global Priorities Institute. Her background is working as a consultant at PwC with government and non-profit clients.

Rox has worked for the last few years on international AI policy in the U.S. Government and at think tanks. She has worked with and for various EA organizations including the Centre for Effective Altruism, the Future of Humanity Institute, Open Philanthropy and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project.

We have received Charity Entrepreneurship support so far:

  • Charity Entrepreneurship’s research team did the initial research into this idea and shared their work with us.
  • Habiba went through Charity Entrepreneurship’s Incubator Programme earlier this year. Rox started working with Habiba to find an idea together about halfway through the program. 
  • Charity Entrepreneurship has provided stipend funding, advice, and operational support (e.g. website design). It will continue to provide mentorship from its leadership team and a fiscal sponsorship arrangement.

What are we going to do?

Spiro will implement sustainable household screening programs in low- and lower-middle income countries. Spiro aims to curb infections and save lives of children in regions with high burdens of tuberculosis by identifying, screening, and treating household contacts of people living with TB.

We will initially establish a proof of concept in one region, working closely with the government TB program. We will then aim to scale nationally, with funding from the Global Fund, and expand to other countries.

Currently, we are planning a visit to Uganda to shadow existing programs to learn from their work. We are also looking into our shortlist of countries to establish where to start our pilot.

Why TB?

Tuberculosis presents a huge global burden, particularly affecting those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, but has historically received less than half the money required according to the Global Plan to End TB.


But ending the tuberculosis epidemic is possible and a highly effective focus area. The Stop TB Partnership estimates returns of $59 of benefits for every $1 spent up to 2050.

Why this intervention?

People ill with TB can infect up to 10-15 other people through close contact over the course of a year - 43% of their contacts will have a latent TB infection. But preventative treatment is highly effective—it reduces progression from latent TB to active TB illness by 60-90%.

There are millions of children at risk of catching this deadly disease and we are failing to protect them from falling ill.

There are many reasons childhood TB prevention has been historically neglected:

  • In an under-resourced setting, preventative treatment is often deprioritized compared to active case treatment due to the latter’s urgency even when prevention works out well over the long-run.
  • There has been a historic focus on preventing cases in adults because they are more infectious than children, but children have higher mortality rates from TB.
  • Only in more recent years have there been innovations to make the medicine water dispersible and child-friendly and to reduce the duration of treatment regimes from nine months to three months or even one month—all of which makes prevention more viable.

Experts we spoke to supported Spiro starting such a program and research suggests it would be highly cost-effective at scale:

We aim to reach this level of cost-effectiveness in two years, in line with successful Charity Entrepreneurship-incubated nonprofits.

Why Spiro?

There are large organizations that work on TB, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and Partners in Health (PIH). But the burden of TB is huge—beyond even their reach—and there are still significant gaps in preventative treatment even in countries with high TB burdens.

Selecting our country of operation carefully, we think we can provide the focus and resources to launch high-impact programs and help people who would otherwise be missed.

  • Focus: We are cost-effectiveness minded and, without the mandate of focusing on active cases, we have the affordance to think long-term.
  • Resources: We can mobilize funding and attention to this neglected area, and can act nimbly as a new organization. We bring strong stakeholder and project management skills for execution.

Budget

We’re seeking to raise $198,000 to fund our first year of work - accounting for planning and carrying out a proof of concept covering an estimated 200 children across 73 households and then a full pilot covering 1000 children across 366 households. 

We’re currently reaching out through the EA network. Although we have Charity Entrepreneurship support we are starting this project outside the incubator schedule and are therefore fundraising ourselves rather than through the Charity Entrepreneurship seed funding circle.

So far we have between 20%-50% of our budget promised. Fundraising is currently one of the two main things we’re focusing on (alongside the shadowing trip).

We’re relatively hopeful that we can raise at least half our budget, but we do need more people to donate in order to get there. If we don’t do this by the beginning of December then we’ll switch our focus away from program planning (particularly country selection) and spend more time on fundraising instead, which we expect will push out our timelines for getting to the useful work by one month.

If we don’t manage to raise our full budget by the end of 2023 then we’ll scale back our ambitions in the immediate term and expect to come back to fundraising a few months later.

You would only want to donate to us if you’re interested in taking a gamble on a new project that has promise but doesn’t have a track record yet. (See this post)

We expect that, like most new projects, what we focus on will shift as we learn more. So potential funders should probably be compelled by the case that there’s something cost-effective we can find to do in the TB space, even if the program design doesn’t end up precisely the same as our current best guess.

You might be particularly interested in donating to us if you’re excited to see people involved in the EA community try working on tuberculosis.

Learn more

If you would like to talk to Habiba or Rox or read our full funding please reach out on habiba.banu@spiro.ngo or roxanne.heston@spiro.ngo. We'd be happy to talk!

Donations

We’re so early on in our charity journey every little helps! We’re really grateful to anyone who’s interested in helping us kickstart this project.

Large donations

If you would like to make a large donation, please get in touch as we can let you know the most efficient way to donate!

Most countries

If you are donating from most countries including the US, you can donate directly to Spiro via our Cornerstone page. Donations are tax deductible in the US. 

Donate (from the US or most countries)

UK and the Netherlands

If you are donating from the UK or the Netherlands, you can donate through Giving What We Can’s fund for charities incubated through Charity Entrepreneurship. Donations are tax deductible in the US, the UK and the Netherlands.

Donate (from the UK or the Netherlands)

If you do this, please also email habiba.banu [at] spiro.ngo letting us know how much you have donated so that we can identify the funds and allocate them to Spiro.



 

Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Excellent, I hope this goes really well!

It would seem better and less confusing to me if the good folk at GWWC (@GraceAdams) add a field in the donation interface with a dropdown menu of which specific CE-incubated charity one wants to donate to (with the default being an agnostic donation for GWWC to distribute between CE charities as they see fit). 

I wanted to check if this project could become redundant by the expected arrival of TB vaccine(s) later this decade, but they had only 50% efficacy in Phase 2 trials, so treatment will indeed be needed for quite a while it seems.

Yes I asked some TB experts about precisely this a little while ago and I totally agree with your take: eventually there will hopefully be even better preventative measures like vaccines but they really do seem like a while off right now. So right now the WHO is keen to push on expanding access to TB preventative treatment.

Hello, Rox! Congratulations on the name! Excited for the team.

This sounds very worthwhile – I’m glad you’re working on this!

We will initially establish a proof of concept in one region, working closely with the government TB program.

It wasn’t clear to me from the post whether you’re planning to do an impact evaluation of an existing government TB programme, or to trial a new kind of screening and preventive treatment programme in partnership with a government (which wouldn’t otherwise do it without you).

We will then aim to scale nationally, with funding from the Global Fund, and expand to other countries.

Have I understood correctly that the Global Fund wouldn’t be willing to fund the proof-of-concept and pilot programmes itself?

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your comment!

It wasn’t clear to me from the post whether you’re planning to do an impact evaluation of an existing government TB programme, or to trial a new kind of screening and preventive treatment programme in partnership with a government (which wouldn’t otherwise do it without you).

Apologies it wasn't clear!

Our current plan is the latter: to start a new program (in partnership with the government).

Programs like this do exist in many countries and many regions but we are hoping to show that a certain program can work well in a particular context where it hasn't been tried before.

Our program may well have elements that are not yet widespread e.g. particular drug regimens, dignostic tools or methods of program delivery (such as through schools or using mobile vans)

Have I understood correctly that the Global Fund wouldn’t be willing to fund the proof-of-concept and pilot programmes itself?

Yes you have understood correctly that we don't expect to get Global Fund money going towards these early stages.

The Global Fund works on a 3 year cycles and provides money for a country's national TB program over that period.

We're hoping to introduce a new program that we don't expect a government / national TB program to already have funding for from the Global Fund. Though, in time, we hope that it will become part of the national TB program activities.

Hope that answers your questions!

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by