> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy/guidance-to-adjust-research-for-producer-provider-engagement-interventions.md). # Guidance to adjust research for producer / provider engagement interventions Contributors: Vicky Cox and Morgan Fairless ### Our evaluation approach should vary according to the type of mechanism being evaluated * Ideas can be characterized by the [primary mechanism](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy) in their theory of change. * Researchers should be mindful of this position when deciding what to front-load and how to approach the research. * This guidance focuses on how to approach ideas that work on producer / provider engagement. ### Producer / provider engagement [Industry and provider engagement](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy) means working directly with specific non-beneficiary actors, actor by actor, to change or improve practices that directly affect the target outcome. Two mechanisms sit inside this bucket: corporate engagement and producer / provider engagement. * Producer / provider engagement—working with producers, farms, facilities, providers, or practitioners to improve their day-to-day practices, including through training, tools, or technical assistance. * Example AIM-incubated organizations: [HealthLearn](https://healthlearn.org/), [Fish Welfare Initiative](https://www.fishwelfareinitiative.org/), [Scale Welfare](https://www.scalewelfare.org/), [Learning Alliance](https://www.learningalliance.net/), and [Fortify Health](https://www.fortifyhealth.global/). * Other example organizations: [Global Food Partners](https://globalfoodpartners.com/), [MSI Reproductive Choices](https://www.msichoices.org/), [Jhpiego](https://jhpiego.org/), and [Dimagi](https://dimagi.com/) ### General advice The key changes to our approach are focused around the fact that the impact of the intervention relies on a third party. The new non-profit will not deliver a benefit to beneficiaries directly; it persuades a non-beneficiary actor to adopt a practice, and that actor delivers the benefit. This means specific focus on * Adoption: whether the actor takes up the practice in the first place. This requires understanding how the industry the actor operates in works—its incentives, supply chains, and constraints—and why the practice is not already happening, so that we can design a theory of change that actually changes practice, and the non-profit can deliver it. * Fidelity: whether the practice is carried out well, and stays that way, as the intervention scales. #### Key areas of focus / things to front-load * Prioritize [theory of change (ToC)](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/ambitious-impact-eval/theories-of-change) thinking. Focus on understanding the barriers to change and why the target outcome is not being done yet. * Fidelity, quality of implementation, and sustained practice change matter more than uptake or adoption in the theory of change. When we outline the theory of change and its assumptions, we should spend more time thinking about these links. Sustained practice change is especially important once the non-profit's support ends. * For global health and development (GHD) interventions, potential pathways for scaling should be identified up front. This may change a non-profit’s activities or who it tries to build relationships with. * We are not sure that this will be possible for animal welfare (AW) ideas as there are fewer case studies of scaling these types of intervention in this cause area. * Talk to people * Ideally, consult experts from the industry being influenced — companies, producers, farmers, facilities, providers, or practitioners. Reaching out on LinkedIn and offering to pay an hourly rate for their time is worth considering. * These conversations should focus on understanding how the industry the new non-profit will be engaging with actually works, what the barriers to change are, and why the target outcome is not being done yet. * Talent considerations * Day-to-day work for these non-profits will be more focused on technical delivery such as ensuring high quality training materials. Still somewhat relationship-based, as they will need to gain access to stakeholders. #### Reporting standards * The theory of change section should include the following sub-sections: * Barriers analysis: State clearly what the problem is and which barriers matter — including the cruxes around how and why the new non-profit will persuade actors to prioritize its asks given an assessment of these barriers. * We need to understand why the target outcome is not being done yet and whether the proposed ToC actually addresses the barriers to change. * This will include some analysis of how the industry the new non-profit will engage with works Beyond this, the approach will differ depending more on where an idea sits on the explore-exploit spectrum than on the mechanism itself. Producer / provider engagement tends toward explore in AW and exploit in GHD. We defer to our [explore-exploit guidance](https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy/guidance-to-adjust-research-based-on-explore-exploit-spectrum) rather than repeating it here. ### Core cruxes to investigate * Who are the actors and what is their reality? * Identify the incentives, barriers, and pressures each actor faces. * Where does the actor sit in the value chain, and who has power over them? Should/could we be working higher up the value chain? * What currently drives or blocks the practice? * Do the changes we are seeking translate into the benefits we want to see materialize? * What is needed to achieve those changes, and what have been the most successful past strategies in this space? * Do the practice changes persist after the non-profit's support ends, or do providers revert? * Why has the change not happened already? * How likely are different tactics and players to achieve those changes? * How counterfactual would those changes be? ### How producer / provider engagement interventions typically scale Producer / provider engagement interventions typically scale through one of the following pathways: * Government handoff: The government becomes the doer at scale. For example, Jhpiego and Unitaid worked with the Government of Kenya through the [Accelerating Measurable Progress and Leveraging Investments for Postpartum Hemorrhage Impact](https://jhpiego.org/areas-of-expertise/ampli-pphi/) piloted a comprehensive package of postpartum hemorrhage prevention, diagnosis and treatment tools in 36 healthcare facilities in Makueni County which was then [scaled county-wide to 243 maternity sites by the government](https://jhpiego.org/our-stories/p/unitaid-and-jhpiego-welcome-the-government-of-kenyas-us7-8-million-commitment-to-scale-up-lifesaving-care-for-mothers-and-newborns/). * Embedded into existing standards or guidelines: The practice change is recognized as best practice and is enshrined into existing standards or guidelines (inside or outside of government). For example, [Jhpiego introduced and scaled self-injected DMPA-SC, a contraceptive, in Punjab, Pakistan, by embedding it into the official training modules of the Population Welfare Department, the provincial government's family-planning agency](https://jhpiego.org/where-we-work/pakistan/). Jhpiego ran a pilot where over 500 health workers in Kasur and Khanewal were trained to support women in self-injection and the pilot’s strong continuation rates and client satisfaction have informed a provincial scale-up strategy. * Charging for services: The non-profit subsidizes its programming by charging providers that are willing and able to pay. For example, [Marie Stopes International created the BlueStar Network](https://mariestopes.org.gh/about/bluestar-franchise-network/) to engage private clinics, midwives, and pharmacies in delivering high-quality sexual and reproductive health services. It currently partners with over 150 clinics and maternity homes, providing them with ongoing training in reproductive health services and once they meet its quality standards, they deliver services on MSI's behalf, with MSI assessing and assuring the quality of care. These clinics pay into the model. * Digital-first interventions: Digital-first interventions rely primarily on digital tools, so they carry high upfront costs but low variable costs. Per-user costs fall as reach grows, and cost-effectiveness rises with scale, making expansion comparatively easy. Scaling focuses on demand generation, partnership building and stakeholder engagement, and word-of-mouth and referrals. For example, [Dimagi’s CommCare platform](https://commcare.dimagi.com/) began in community, maternal, and child health. It then expanded to other health areas (immunization, TB, HIV, nutrition, vitamin A, deworming, ORS and zinc, etc.) and to non-health services such as agriculture, education, financial inclusion, and humanitarian response. Because each new use case runs on the same platform and workforce, Dimagi added them at low marginal cost. * Expansion to other services: Working with the same non-beneficiary actors but using different tactics / providing different services to ensure the same practice change. For example, [Global Food Partners](https://globalfoodpartners.com/) works with corporations and producers to accelerate the transition to cage-free egg production. It started around 2020 by creating [cage-free training centers](https://globalfoodpartners.com/hubs) and [training materials](https://globalfoodpartners.com/academy) to provide training and support to help farmers transition to cage-free. Since, it has expanded its services to include the following: * Creating and maintaining a virtual "Cage-Free Hub," a global producer database and resource center that connects egg producers with businesses looking to source cage-free eggs. * [Providing on-farm training and technical assistance](https://globalfoodpartners.com/projects/vietnam-cage-free-transition) (e.g., barn retrofitting and training on the best management practices for cage-free flocks). * Creating [cage-free impact incentives](https://globalfoodpartners.com/incentives) which allow corporations to purchase credits from cage-free egg producers certified by Global Food Partners, and offset their use of caged eggs without immediate supply chain changes. This cage-free credits scheme is explicitly transitional. Global Food Partners works with buyers to develop a roadmap toward physical cage-free sourcing within three to five years of joining. * A [loan program](https://thecsruniverse.com/articles/global-food-partners-charts-a-market-led-path-for-animal-welfare-in-food-supply-chains) to help producers cover the cost of transition to cage-free, with the loan being paid --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the following URL with the `ask` and `goal` query parameters: ``` GET https://ambitious-impact.gitbook.io/ambitious-impact-docs/explainers-and-house-views/our-charity-taxonomy/guidance-to-adjust-research-for-producer-provider-engagement-interventions.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is what the user is ultimately trying to achieve, the reason they need the answer. Sharing it helps GitBook give you a better, more relevant answer. A goal is most helpful when it describes the outcome the user wants rather than restating the question. For example, with `ask=how do I create an API token`, a goal like `automate deployments from our CI pipeline` lets GitBook tailor the answer to that use case. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.