I imagine that’s the purpose of the trial—to optimise the programme for lifesaving and get that cost-per-life down.
They’ve already got data that villages nearer a physician show stronger benefit, timing on month of birth shows stronger benefit. I wouldn’t be surprised to find other things (e.g. maternal age, child number, season in year, country, harvest quality) contributing and therefore optimisable, as well as the benefit/​$ rising if the $ amount drops.
Also the 77% drop from a one-time intervention is already a huge whole-issue tackle that’s going to have massive donor appeal (e.g. give $1000 to safeguard one child—this child). We had a Forum post some time back from someone expressing strong preference for knowing exactly where their money went. It’s a very common donor preference.
I imagine that’s the purpose of the trial—to optimise the programme for lifesaving and get that cost-per-life down.
They’ve already got data that villages nearer a physician show stronger benefit, timing on month of birth shows stronger benefit. I wouldn’t be surprised to find other things (e.g. maternal age, child number, season in year, country, harvest quality) contributing and therefore optimisable, as well as the benefit/​$ rising if the $ amount drops.
Also the 77% drop from a one-time intervention is already a huge whole-issue tackle that’s going to have massive donor appeal (e.g. give $1000 to safeguard one child—this child). We had a Forum post some time back from someone expressing strong preference for knowing exactly where their money went. It’s a very common donor preference.
Well done GiveDirectly!