CHAI’s CEO is Neil Buddy Shah, who was previously a managing director at Givewell, so that probably partially explains why Givewell feels well aligned with CHAI.
I think CHAI is a little different to say Oxfam or World Vision in that they don’t typically do service provision, instead their focus is more technical assistance to governments to help the existing health system function better.
Importantly, it seems that GiveWell only funds specific programs from CHAI, not CHAI as a whole. It could very well be the case that CHAI as a whole is inefficient and not particularly good at what they do, but GiveWell thinks those specific programs are cost-effective.
Disclaimer: this is only from looking at GiveWell’s website and searching for “CHAI”, I don’t have any insider information
Thanks @Ray_Kennedy that makes a lot of sense. I’ve heard of them in Uganda here more around projects with government and a bit of on-the-ground implementation but the market shaping stuff is interesting and sounds pretty cool. To clarify on the “do many things” front I was more trying to say they are seem like “BINGO” in that they do a wide range of somewhat unrelated programs, rather than they do the same type of things as Oxfam and World vision exactly. They do seem to do a huge range of different things including working with governments, market shaping and direct programs (see @Lorenzo Buonanno’s note). The programs GiveWell is funding on the chart above don’t I think mostly fall under your 2 categories market shaping nor government assistance but I could be wrong—they seem more like direct work.
Thanks @Lorenzo Buonanno makes a lot of sense. I agree that GiveWell sees those programs as cost-effective, my question is more why is it that CHAI is seen as being a trusted organisation to implement these programs when that’s not their primary work and they don’t have years of experience there. I also wonder about the chicken and the egg here. Do these programs exist to access GiveWell funding, or were they doing them anyway and then GiveWell funded them more? That’s not part of my original question though so now I’m the one with mission drift ;).
CHAI’s CEO is Neil Buddy Shah, who was previously a managing director at Givewell, so that probably partially explains why Givewell feels well aligned with CHAI.
I think CHAI is a little different to say Oxfam or World Vision in that they don’t typically do service provision, instead their focus is more technical assistance to governments to help the existing health system function better.
They do a lot of market shaping work which I think is unusual for NGOs, historically they have helped reduce the price of HIV medications or see this more recent development at negotiating a low price for a dual HIV/syphilis rapid diagnostic test: https://www.clintonhealthaccess.org/news/dual-syphilis-hiv-rdt-for-under-us1/ which is now something Givewell is trying to support introduction for → https://www.givewell.org/research/grants/evidence-action-syphilis-july-2022
Disclaimer—I used to work at CHAI!
Neil Buddy Shah also serves on Anthropic’s Long-Term Benefit Trust (see mentions of CHAI on this page)
Importantly, it seems that GiveWell only funds specific programs from CHAI, not CHAI as a whole. It could very well be the case that CHAI as a whole is inefficient and not particularly good at what they do, but GiveWell thinks those specific programs are cost-effective.
Disclaimer: this is only from looking at GiveWell’s website and searching for “CHAI”, I don’t have any insider information
Thanks @Ray_Kennedy that makes a lot of sense. I’ve heard of them in Uganda here more around projects with government and a bit of on-the-ground implementation but the market shaping stuff is interesting and sounds pretty cool. To clarify on the “do many things” front I was more trying to say they are seem like “BINGO” in that they do a wide range of somewhat unrelated programs, rather than they do the same type of things as Oxfam and World vision exactly. They do seem to do a huge range of different things including working with governments, market shaping and direct programs (see @Lorenzo Buonanno’s note). The programs GiveWell is funding on the chart above don’t I think mostly fall under your 2 categories market shaping nor government assistance but I could be wrong—they seem more like direct work.
Thanks @Lorenzo Buonanno makes a lot of sense. I agree that GiveWell sees those programs as cost-effective, my question is more why is it that CHAI is seen as being a trusted organisation to implement these programs when that’s not their primary work and they don’t have years of experience there. I also wonder about the chicken and the egg here. Do these programs exist to access GiveWell funding, or were they doing them anyway and then GiveWell funded them more? That’s not part of my original question though so now I’m the one with mission drift ;).