Published: November 28, 2011
| Project | Research questions | What does the existing evidence say? | Possible research locations | Estimated budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Examining Underinvestment in Agriculture | What kinds of products can assist farmers in making more productive investments? What are the returns to fertilizer? What are the returns to other agricultural inputs, such as plow usage or labor? Are farmers risk averse, or do they lack the initial capital to invest in agricultural inputs? | Building on evidence that fertilizer (when used in specified quantities) is a profitable investment for farmers in Western Kenya, an RCT study found that farmers purchased fertilizer for the next season more often when given the chance to buy it right after harvest with free delivery at the start of the next planting season. The study did not examine directly whether crop yields or profits rose.12 The authors concluded that the program was not cost effective as implemented, but the idea of selling vouchers at harvest time is promising, if done through a cheaper delivery channel.13 | Mali, Uganda, Malawi | $1 to 5 million |
| Graduating the Ultra-Poor | What is the impact of the Microfinance Graduation Pilot intervention on social and economic outcomes (income, assets, school attendance of children, health and food security)? What is the viability of “graduating” the ultra poor to food security and/or microfinance? Is mandating savings necessary for ensuring financial stability among the target group? | The first study of the program compared pre- and post-program data on participants and on those who did not qualify for the program due to being slightly better off. The study found positive results both soon after and a few years after the program ended.14 Preliminary results from two RCTs in India are publicly available but the authors have requested that they not be cited.15 The first program studied cost about $500 per participant.16 | Mali, Liberia, Sierra Leone | $1.5 to 3 million per site |
| Incentives for Vaccines | What level of incentive works in increasing immunization rates? What is the impact of incentives when offered in public health facilities in addition to mobile clinics? | Villages were randomly assigned to receive immunization camps, immunization camps plus rewards for bringing children to the camps, or neither. Both interventions resulted in statistically significant increases in the number of immunizations and rates of children fully immunized, with incentives having a larger effect.17 The cost of the camps with incentives was $28 per child fully immunized and $56 at camps without incentives.18 | Peru, Morocco (and others) | $100,000 to $1 million per site |
| Remedial Education | What is the impact of the tutoring program on children’s test scores? If the program is effective, is it due to the remedial education, or simply because of smaller class sizes? Will reducing instructional time with the regular teacher (by pulling low performing students out the regular class) reduce learning levels? If so, would remedial classes be more effective if conducted after school hours? Can teachers achieve the same results without assistants, if trained to do so? | A randomized evaluation found statistically significant improvements in tests scores among children in schools that received tutors. Improvements did not persist for schools that had received tutors in the year or two following the program. Gains for the worst-performing students were still statistically significant one year after the program, though at a considerably lower level than they were immediately following the program.19 The program cost $2.25 per student per year and $0.67 per standard deviation improvement in test scores.20 | TBD | $1.2 million |
| Safe Water Project (Chlorine dispenser system) | How will the dispenser system be financed over time? How will a reliable supply of chlorine be delivered to communities? If chlorine supply is publicly and donor financed, how will funding be linked to efficient distribution? How will the dispenser hardware be installed and maintained over time? ______________________________ | A randomized evaluation looked at the combination of free chlorine dispensers at water collection points and local promoters of the dispensers. The full report on the evaluation is preliminary; a summary paper reported that the intervention led to a 37 percentage point gain in chlorine use at 3 weeks and 53 percentage point gain at 3-6 months.21 Systematic reviews have found that point-of-use chlorination reduces reported diarrhea;22 we have not seen direct evidence that point-of-collection chlorination reduces diarrhea (chlorine may provide residual protection in some cases23). The dispenser study found that the program could be "extremely cost-effective, with a cost per DALY saved that could be as low as $20 at scale."24 __________________________________ | Ethiopia, Haiti, Kenya | Flexible (partial scale up possible) |
