1) What data have you found about a second pregnancy being detrimental to the first? Can you expand this point?
2)Even if a woman has money, that doesn't solve the gender inequity that is often at the root of maternal mortality. When women can't access reproductive health services, including contraception, and, at the same time, often lack the power to negotiate safe sex with their partners, they don't have control over when and if they get pregnant. How would you respond to this point?
1. I don't mean to imply that a second pregnancy is detrimental to the first. Only that a pregnancy too soon after the first (There is still some debate what the ideal time interval is)can potentially cause harm to the mother (directly) and the infant (since it is displaced).
2. I fully agree that money does not solve the issue of gender equity. By recruiting women who live in the same area, we try to foster a sense of camaraderie that gives them confidence and creates a peer pressure to avoid pregnancy. The money (or vouchers)when paid out using small denominations (say divided into weekly bits) will carry a symbolic meaning.
This is an intriguing idea. I have some questions as well.
1. How do you decide when a woman is eligible. Must she have had one child already? If so, might this encourage women to have a child in order to receive the benefit?
2. How do you determine the right amount to pay people? If the incentive is too strong, might this lead to corruption or misuse of the system?
3. How do you prevent corruption/abuse of the incentive?
4. How will you sustain funding?
5. You mention that a similar intervention was used in Denver. Did it work?
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please make sure that all of the information in the discussion section of your entry is reflected in the application itself, as judges do not read the discussion section.
1. The program will start enrollment when women undergo a delivery. This may be her first or fourth child - it doesn't matter. In India, the pressure is greatest on the woman to have her first child (lest she be classified infertile). So to gain public support, the program should not target women who have not had any children (bad memories of the sterilization drives of the 70s and 80s still go around).
2. The amount of the incentive needs discussion/ community research - it should not be too low as to be ignored nor too high to become a target for misuse.
3. The corruption issue (which translates into fairness in the eyes of the community) will make or break this program. I hope implementation by NGOs and good oversight can control (if not eradicate ) the misuse of funds. Another idea may be to issue vouchers (instead of cash) that can be redeemed at PDS shops for food.
4. The sustainability will come about if the cost per maternal death averted and cost per infant/ child death averted due to the program will equal or become less than the spending through other programs.
5. The Denver program demonstrated some limited success but ran into problems due to differences between the parent organization and its implementing affiliate. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/16/us/denver-program-curbs-teen-agers-pre...
What incentive are women going to have to start having children again once they get on this plan? Is there a time limit on how long they will receive the funds? It sounds like it will become a welfare program that every woman will join once she has a child. How will you stop this.
It's also possible that women will be forced into childbearing so they can receive the money once they've given birth.
What will happen to women who had miscarriages? Will they also receive funds?
There will be a time limit (say for three years)for how long they will receive the money after a childbirth.
The areas where this will work consist are already high birth rate area where the woman is expected to have a child soon after marriage. the scheme is to encourage some gap between pregnancies.
We will have to exclude miscarriages since there will be no ideal way to keep track.
Comentarios
Thanks for your post.
I have some questions:
1) What data have you found about a second pregnancy being detrimental to the first? Can you expand this point?
2)Even if a woman has money, that doesn't solve the gender inequity that is often at the root of maternal mortality. When women can't access reproductive health services, including contraception, and, at the same time, often lack the power to negotiate safe sex with their partners, they don't have control over when and if they get pregnant. How would you respond to this point?
1. I don't mean to imply that a second pregnancy is detrimental to the first. Only that a pregnancy too soon after the first (There is still some debate what the ideal time interval is)can potentially cause harm to the mother (directly) and the infant (since it is displaced).
2. I fully agree that money does not solve the issue of gender equity. By recruiting women who live in the same area, we try to foster a sense of camaraderie that gives them confidence and creates a peer pressure to avoid pregnancy. The money (or vouchers)when paid out using small denominations (say divided into weekly bits) will carry a symbolic meaning.
This is an intriguing idea. I have some questions as well.
1. How do you decide when a woman is eligible. Must she have had one child already? If so, might this encourage women to have a child in order to receive the benefit?
2. How do you determine the right amount to pay people? If the incentive is too strong, might this lead to corruption or misuse of the system?
3. How do you prevent corruption/abuse of the incentive?
4. How will you sustain funding?
5. You mention that a similar intervention was used in Denver. Did it work?
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please make sure that all of the information in the discussion section of your entry is reflected in the application itself, as judges do not read the discussion section.
Thanks,
Claire
Ashoka
1. The program will start enrollment when women undergo a delivery. This may be her first or fourth child - it doesn't matter. In India, the pressure is greatest on the woman to have her first child (lest she be classified infertile). So to gain public support, the program should not target women who have not had any children (bad memories of the sterilization drives of the 70s and 80s still go around).
2. The amount of the incentive needs discussion/ community research - it should not be too low as to be ignored nor too high to become a target for misuse.
3. The corruption issue (which translates into fairness in the eyes of the community) will make or break this program. I hope implementation by NGOs and good oversight can control (if not eradicate ) the misuse of funds. Another idea may be to issue vouchers (instead of cash) that can be redeemed at PDS shops for food.
4. The sustainability will come about if the cost per maternal death averted and cost per infant/ child death averted due to the program will equal or become less than the spending through other programs.
5. The Denver program demonstrated some limited success but ran into problems due to differences between the parent organization and its implementing affiliate.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/16/us/denver-program-curbs-teen-agers-pre...
Some others have imitated it in various forms.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/09/pregnancy
What incentive are women going to have to start having children again once they get on this plan? Is there a time limit on how long they will receive the funds? It sounds like it will become a welfare program that every woman will join once she has a child. How will you stop this.
It's also possible that women will be forced into childbearing so they can receive the money once they've given birth.
What will happen to women who had miscarriages? Will they also receive funds?
There will be a time limit (say for three years)for how long they will receive the money after a childbirth.
The areas where this will work consist are already high birth rate area where the woman is expected to have a child soon after marriage. the scheme is to encourage some gap between pregnancies.
We will have to exclude miscarriages since there will be no ideal way to keep track.
Enviar un comentario nuevo