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.
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.