The blood idea seems to have struck a negative chord, and perhaps was not the best project, but we learn as we go along. The notion of Pavlovian responses is in all of us – when you see a speeding camera, do you accelerate? The fact is, I am tired of not being able to help those on the side of the road suffering, and this is my response.
Some projects will work, others won’t but at least it will feed somebody.

Sure, the blood-mining thing is pushing the boundaries, but look at the wetlands project for instance. It incentivises people to improve their own community.

We (the upper classes) get a lot of incentives to quit smoking, or go green, for the good of all. And I don’t feel patronized in any way.

After a careful rethinking of their projects, I think Broccoli can make a meaningful contribution.

I have written up some of my own reflections on this here: http://asubtleknife.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/eat-your-greens/

(I see someone else has already posted my blog link above – I don’t know who that was! Anyway – responses are welcome…)

Thanks for the analysis.

I was so revolted I could not read more.

http://www.broccoliproject.org/ShowCase.aspx?SCID=3

$5 (R40, give or take) for a pint of blood – I think ‘outrageous’ might adequately describe this idea. There is a reason why blood services run on a no-fee basis and it’s imperative that they do so. I cannot understand the logic of using a poor community as a blood farm, I’m sure the ethical line is crossed way before that. Does R40 even buy sufficient iron-rich foods (since we’re talking communities already at risk of suboptimal nutrition such as iron deficiency) to replace that pint of blood?

I still reserve the right to be cautiously optimistic about conditionality in relation to certain cash transfers although I have seen the research on expenses of grant recipients. My particular concern is education and the perceived choice between school and food – this simply should never be a choice. Both are absolutely essential. Mismanagement and inefficiencies are within the school system as a whole lead to money being thrown around without commensurate gains in outcomes – however, keeping kids in school is one thing that needs to be addressed concurrently with other pressing issues.

But I take your points on board and, having now checked out the whole Broccoli website, can honestly say that these are not the people I’d advocate having anything to do with CCTs generally.

As far as CCT’s are concerned, studies have shown that no correlation between improved outcomes and the conditionality can be identified. Research in South Africa has shown that despite pervasive myths about the unconditional Child Support Grant, poor caregivers spend the CSG primarily on food, education-related costs, and basic services. So much for the idea that poor people are incapable of using cash to take care of themselves or their children.

I do not share your view that school feeding and no-fee policies necessarily reduce schooling costs. These policies suffer from poor implementation and subsidization – again verified by research. Until such time as they work successfully, regular unconditional cash transfers based on ongoing eligibility, like those administered by our own social assistance system, continue to be absolute life lines.

A once-off food or clothing voucher in exchange for a pint of blood and biometric data makes no sustainable impact on poverty and hunger. Resources should be aimed at sustainable solutions that make a difference for more than one day. More pertinently, to equate food, clothing and building materials (human rights!) with consumer benefits like voyager miles is repugnant. To accept blood from a vulnerable person for testing or storing, for food vouchers, is outrageous.

Broccoli must urgently rethink its projects.

In spite of a natural recoiling from something like this, I think it’s important to sift through it and see if there’s anything useful. For example, kids between certain ages shouldn’t be left with a choice about whether or not to go to school, there simply isn’t any legitimate reason for them not to go – which is why I’m strongly in favour of cash transfers relating to school aged children being absolutely dependent on school attendance. School feeding schemes, free schooling as currently provided for children in the grant system and schools being compelled to run secondhand uniform exchanges, and schemes to provide stationery and books, etc. remove any almost other imperative. Child headed households need to receive absolutely unconditional support in order to get all kids into school and give them a chance later to make choices otherwise denied to them.

Giving blood for cash? Um, no.

The essence of this project is bribing vulnerable groups to behave in ways we all seem to be convinced they ordinarily would not. It is founded on a poor understanding of social issues, of poverty, and insults the intelligence and of every poor individual in South Africa. Furthermore, likening it to cash transfers of any kind including the South African social assistance system, conditional or unconditional, insults the intelligence of us all.

Giving a poor person a voucher in exchange for donating blood, and/or being tested for HIV is immoral and unethical, and an outrage. It amounts to essentially selling part of your body in desperation. For a poor and hungry person to “choose” between giving blood and eating is not a choice. It is manipulation, and an infringement of human dignity.

Poor people are not stupid, vice-ridden or in need of social discipline. They are just poor.

This is an unfortunate example of the worst kind of philanthro-capitalism in action. Those responsible for the project would do well to engage in some serious reading and consulting with institutions in the know about poverty and human rights – before Broccoli does more harm than good.

The key would be to find a wider range of value-adds to individuals in the community that also lend broader value to society at large to net mzx people. There’s no point trading off something fluffy that isn’t perceived to have a value or something that should be provided for free anyway. The benefits need to be well researched or people will just essentially profit seek and turn away from other positive behaviours.

And…stop the creep that is going to end up in everything being deemed ‘something I should get for free’. I could have sworn I saw students demonstrating about lack of DSTV a while back…

Rewards for taking medication seems a little weird though in my opinion. I’m strongly in favour of the (yes, labour-intensive) health visitor who comes round every day and supervises. Schemes that have run that seem to have had very high compliance rates pretty much unmatched by anything else.

The one other thing that needs to be avoided with this kind of scheme is any perception of it being a massive database of personal information that really shouldn’t be available all in one place. That could become incredibly cumbersome to administer as well as potentially compromising for the individual.

But yeah, if properly managed, interesting.