Thanks Jack-- appreciate that! Great idea on the CE figures. I'm going to add that to the article--I think cost per life saved estimates-- to the three health ones. I'll send you a message after I do that. Thanks for the suggestion!
Really appreciated this post! We just posted about local capacity in the forum, and commenting here to discuss how aligned our thinking is. We're trying to scale proven high-impact interventions (ORS delivery, kangaroo care, home-based treatment of wasting) through local implementers using digitally verified service delivery. We think a larger percentage of the money goes to local implementers than in alternative models. We find high performers by starting small and watching delivery data rather than vetting proposals. But the funding decisions themselves aren't made any more locally than in the models you're critiquing.
I'm curious in if our approach seems like an alternative way to achieve similar goals to the ones you describe here or seems pretty far off because we haven't addressed the main issue of the far-off funder. Happy to elaborate if that isn't clear.
Hi Sjir. I enjoyed the post and pattern-matched strongly on 'marketplace' and donors buying impact, because we're working on a platform called Connect to scale cost-effective interventions through local implementers, that we describe as a two-sided verified service delivery marketplace and often talk about selling impact. (We just posted about it with a reference to your post.)
My question is if you imagine that the evaluators in your diagram need to collect their own data, or can the intervention provide it to them. Reading your post made me think about how we could support an evaluator layer outside our platform, using the per-service-delivery data we collect. But then I wondered whether an evaluator relying on data from the platform it's assessing is independent enough for what you have in mind. Happy to elaborate if this line of inquiry is interesting to you.
Thanks Jack-- appreciate that! Great idea on the CE figures. I'm going to add that to the article--I think cost per life saved estimates-- to the three health ones. I'll send you a message after I do that. Thanks for the suggestion!
Really appreciated this post! We just posted about local capacity in the forum, and commenting here to discuss how aligned our thinking is. We're trying to scale proven high-impact interventions (ORS delivery, kangaroo care, home-based treatment of wasting) through local implementers using digitally verified service delivery. We think a larger percentage of the money goes to local implementers than in alternative models. We find high performers by starting small and watching delivery data rather than vetting proposals. But the funding decisions themselves aren't made any more locally than in the models you're critiquing.
I'm curious in if our approach seems like an alternative way to achieve similar goals to the ones you describe here or seems pretty far off because we haven't addressed the main issue of the far-off funder. Happy to elaborate if that isn't clear.
Hi Sjir. I enjoyed the post and pattern-matched strongly on 'marketplace' and donors buying impact, because we're working on a platform called Connect to scale cost-effective interventions through local implementers, that we describe as a two-sided verified service delivery marketplace and often talk about selling impact. (We just posted about it with a reference to your post.)
My question is if you imagine that the evaluators in your diagram need to collect their own data, or can the intervention provide it to them. Reading your post made me think about how we could support an evaluator layer outside our platform, using the per-service-delivery data we collect. But then I wondered whether an evaluator relying on data from the platform it's assessing is independent enough for what you have in mind. Happy to elaborate if this line of inquiry is interesting to you.