This probably isn’t something you want to spend a ton of time right now thinking or writing about, but I am curious about the medium/long-run funding model you have in mind. Specifically, I am wondering if you thought it would be viable in the medium to long run to obtain a significant fraction of needed funds through small payments by clients, in-country fundraising, and/or partial government support. (That is not a suggestion that you should be trying to raise money from these sources in the near term!)
Among other reasons I am excited to see VP launch, I am interested in having the community gain knowledge about how an EA organization might be able to capitalize on the advantages of being in a medium-income country as opposed to a low-income one. For instance, in my decision to make a small donation to VP in 2023, I gave moderately significant weight to the leadership team coming from outside a high-income country. Nothing against people from high-income countries (of whom I am one), but I think your operating model could potentially open doors to certain non-EA donors who strongly preference organizations that are closer to the communities they serve. For instance, I think that the team collectively having been on the ground for decades prior to starting operations could be a strong selling point for donors in many Christian communities.
I do suspect the CEA is on the optimistic side based on the concerns that have been raised about StrongMinds’ own CEA, and the assumption that work in a high-medium income country will be less cost-effective than in Uganda. So one of the ideas I’d be interested in seeing VP consider (at the right time!) is whether it can use EA dollars for startup/development and then as partial funding to leverage/multiply in-country resources, rather than having ongoing operations nearly-100% funded by Western donors. That kind of leverage strikes me as a potential way to make donations to work in middle-income countries have cost-effectiveness profiles closer to those we see for work in low-income countries.
The other question/observation I have about work in a medium-income country is whether the ability to eventually raise some fraction of money in-country could be a useful signal that the community values the work the non-profit is doing. While I don’t agree with most critiques of global health/development charities as Western imperialists, I think I would consider evidence of local buy-in when evaluating a charity in a middle-income country that is more than a few years old. In contrast, I would assume that the reason the low-income country charity doesn’t have measureable local buy-in is unrelated to the community’s interest in the charity, but wouldn’t automatically make that assumption for a developed charity in a middle-income country. Of course, there are other evidences of local buy-in, such as an extensive volunteer network, so I don’t mean to privilege funding over other forms of evidence.
Hi Jason! Thank you so much for all your very thoughtful comments and ideas! (and also for your decision to support us in 2023!) Want to take a minute to respond to some of your points:
Funding from non-EA sources: absolutely! We are so grateful that the EA-community is willing to take some risks on new organizations before they have a track record. With the results that we are able to demonstrate early on, we are absolutely planning on applying for counterfactual funding. In fact, as an example of this we were just selected to be part of the South Park Commons Social Innovators Fellowship, which is hosted in collaboration with the Agency Fund.
Mixed-payer model / sliding fee scale: yes, this is also a possibility we are keeping in the cards if needed, always keep in mind our mission. Our target populations are low-income communities and refugees: people who would not otherwise be able to access services (for example, we’ve found for some people even the $0.50 bus fees to attend are prohibitive). Additionally, I have talked with other mental health program founders (from Europe) who have warned me of being careful about the mission drift that can happen when taking on high-value paying customers (even with the positive goal of them subsidising other people...seems even with the best of intentions, they say it can be hard not to end up focusing more on the people who pay...).
Local fundraising / government funding: yes! This is actually part of our long-term plans. There is significant research that demonstrates improving one’s mental health results in improvements to physical health. We would like to demonstrate that this program can actually be a cost-savings to the national public health system. Furthermore, a recent UNICEF study found that untreated mental illness costs $30B a year in Latin America, making a very good case for national governments to dedicate more of their current public health budgets to mental health (currently less than 2% according to the PAHO).
Local leadership and talent: I completely agree, - this is one of my favorite points that you bring up! Latin America is full of highly educated, very experienced professionals, and so this is who we will continue to hire. Something that differentiates us from Strong Minds. I am committed that our staff from all levels be locally based in Latin America, both as a cost-savings measure and especially to benefit from this incredible local talent- their professional connections, local knowledge, and personal understanding of the needs of the people we serve.
Happy to chat with you further or answer any other questions that might come up—open invite to anyone to find a time on my calendar.
This probably isn’t something you want to spend a ton of time right now thinking or writing about, but I am curious about the medium/long-run funding model you have in mind. Specifically, I am wondering if you thought it would be viable in the medium to long run to obtain a significant fraction of needed funds through small payments by clients, in-country fundraising, and/or partial government support. (That is not a suggestion that you should be trying to raise money from these sources in the near term!)
Among other reasons I am excited to see VP launch, I am interested in having the community gain knowledge about how an EA organization might be able to capitalize on the advantages of being in a medium-income country as opposed to a low-income one. For instance, in my decision to make a small donation to VP in 2023, I gave moderately significant weight to the leadership team coming from outside a high-income country. Nothing against people from high-income countries (of whom I am one), but I think your operating model could potentially open doors to certain non-EA donors who strongly preference organizations that are closer to the communities they serve. For instance, I think that the team collectively having been on the ground for decades prior to starting operations could be a strong selling point for donors in many Christian communities.
I do suspect the CEA is on the optimistic side based on the concerns that have been raised about StrongMinds’ own CEA, and the assumption that work in a high-medium income country will be less cost-effective than in Uganda. So one of the ideas I’d be interested in seeing VP consider (at the right time!) is whether it can use EA dollars for startup/development and then as partial funding to leverage/multiply in-country resources, rather than having ongoing operations nearly-100% funded by Western donors. That kind of leverage strikes me as a potential way to make donations to work in middle-income countries have cost-effectiveness profiles closer to those we see for work in low-income countries.
The other question/observation I have about work in a medium-income country is whether the ability to eventually raise some fraction of money in-country could be a useful signal that the community values the work the non-profit is doing. While I don’t agree with most critiques of global health/development charities as Western imperialists, I think I would consider evidence of local buy-in when evaluating a charity in a middle-income country that is more than a few years old. In contrast, I would assume that the reason the low-income country charity doesn’t have measureable local buy-in is unrelated to the community’s interest in the charity, but wouldn’t automatically make that assumption for a developed charity in a middle-income country. Of course, there are other evidences of local buy-in, such as an extensive volunteer network, so I don’t mean to privilege funding over other forms of evidence.
Hi Jason! Thank you so much for all your very thoughtful comments and ideas! (and also for your decision to support us in 2023!) Want to take a minute to respond to some of your points:
Funding from non-EA sources: absolutely! We are so grateful that the EA-community is willing to take some risks on new organizations before they have a track record. With the results that we are able to demonstrate early on, we are absolutely planning on applying for counterfactual funding. In fact, as an example of this we were just selected to be part of the South Park Commons Social Innovators Fellowship, which is hosted in collaboration with the Agency Fund.
Mixed-payer model / sliding fee scale: yes, this is also a possibility we are keeping in the cards if needed, always keep in mind our mission. Our target populations are low-income communities and refugees: people who would not otherwise be able to access services (for example, we’ve found for some people even the $0.50 bus fees to attend are prohibitive). Additionally, I have talked with other mental health program founders (from Europe) who have warned me of being careful about the mission drift that can happen when taking on high-value paying customers (even with the positive goal of them subsidising other people...seems even with the best of intentions, they say it can be hard not to end up focusing more on the people who pay...).
Local fundraising / government funding: yes! This is actually part of our long-term plans. There is significant research that demonstrates improving one’s mental health results in improvements to physical health. We would like to demonstrate that this program can actually be a cost-savings to the national public health system. Furthermore, a recent UNICEF study found that untreated mental illness costs $30B a year in Latin America, making a very good case for national governments to dedicate more of their current public health budgets to mental health (currently less than 2% according to the PAHO).
Local leadership and talent: I completely agree, - this is one of my favorite points that you bring up! Latin America is full of highly educated, very experienced professionals, and so this is who we will continue to hire. Something that differentiates us from Strong Minds. I am committed that our staff from all levels be locally based in Latin America, both as a cost-savings measure and especially to benefit from this incredible local talent- their professional connections, local knowledge, and personal understanding of the needs of the people we serve.
Happy to chat with you further or answer any other questions that might come up—open invite to anyone to find a time on my calendar.