Hacker News Reader

Comment by tgb | Hacker News Reader

I have a (minor) concern that we here at HN are biased towards charities that are tech-oriented, hip app-developing to solve the world, versus a more mundane charity. Can you (or your wife) comment on that? Why does this charity need flashy tech? New tech comes with costs, like unreliability or unexpectedly high costs or extra training - any concern for that? Givewell's support is a significant confidence booster in this regards, but I think it's an interesting subject to discuss.

Best of luck to New Incentives.

(P.S. if you want to recruit in this thread, I'd specify if it's paid or volunteer and whether it's on-site or remote. Or anything else they have in Who's Hiring? threads.)

View on HN

Great question! The key is in what way are we using tech. Our model, conditional cash transfers (CCTs), has been used for many years by governments in several contexts. We are not inventing anything new by any means. However, our manner of implementation is trying to innovate by reducing some of the biggest challenges these government programs face: corruption and accountability.

For example, without technology we'd be facing the same issue as the Nigerian government (the country we work in): ghost beneficiaries. By taking advantage of currently available biometric solutions, we reduce this and increase the likelihood that our money goes to real beneficiaries. We are wary of adopting technology unless it is absolutely necessary. Another way we use technology is to collect data in the field. We are working in remote, rural areas with high levels of rainfall so we use mobile apps to collect data. This helps reduce the amount of data compromised and also provides an additional layer of verification: by seeing timestamps and knowing exactly who edits what and when. This helps us maintain higher levels of accountability and identify early warning signs of potential fraud.

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

Tech is very effective in reducing corruption, because tech makes it possible to make for example bureaucrats and applicants unknowable to each other in simple cases, thereby making it harder to ask for, or give, money.

Online applications are a huge success, corruption-wise. So tech does really have something going on in a very meaningful amount of cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com