SWAPC Commitments on Cost-Effectiveness, Transparency and Faith-Informed Impact (Seeking Feedback)
I’m part of a grassroots initiative in rural western Kenya working with widows living on less than $1/day. We’re trying to align our work with principles of cost-effectiveness, transparency, and evidence-informed decision-making.
As part of this, we’ve drafted a set of “SWAPC (Samia Widows AiD & Protection Center) Commitments” to guide how we prioritize and implement programs. These are still evolving, and I’d genuinely value critical feedback from this community—especially on whether they are sufficiently rigorous and decision-relevant.
SWAPC Commitments
We share these as a working framework—open to critique, refinement, and accountability.
1. Commitment to Impact per Dollar
We prioritize interventions that deliver the greatest sustained improvement in wellbeing per dollar spent—particularly for widows living in extreme poverty (<$1/day).
Where evidence is limited, we adopt a test-and-learn approach and update our strategy as better data emerges.
2. Commitment to the Most Vulnerable
We focus explicitly on widows facing extreme economic and social marginalization—recognizing both their vulnerability and their potential as agents of change within their communities.
3. Commitment to Evidence-Informed Practice
We integrate available research (e.g., on savings groups, livelihoods, and poverty alleviation) with real-world community insights.
We aim to continuously improve how we measure:
4. Commitment to Radical Transparency
We will openly share:
This includes publishing updates, reflecting on failures, and inviting external critique.
5. Commitment to Community-Led Solutions
Our model is built on widows’ self-help groups as the foundation for change.
We prioritize local ownership, co-investment (time, savings, labor) and culturally grounded approaches.
6. Commitment to Integrated, Long-Term Outcomes
We operate across four pillars—financial inclusion, agriculture, health, and digital access—based on the hypothesis that multi-dimensional poverty requires integrated solutions.
We are actively exploring whether this approach produces more durable outcomes than single-intervention models.
7. Commitment to Faith-Inspired Stewardship
Our work is motivated by Christian values of compassion, dignity and justice—particularly the call to support widows.
We view resources as entrusted to us, to be used wisely for the greatest good.
8. Commitment to Scalable Impact
We aim to develop a model that can be responsibly replicated in similar contexts across western Kenya and Eastern Uganda—without compromising effectiveness or community ownership.
9. Commitment to Learning with the EA Community
We actively seek critique, collaboration, and guidance from the EA community—including those interested in Christianity and effective giving—to strengthen our approach and improve impact.
Brief Context
SWAPC currently works with 500+ widows annually through self-help groups. Early, self-reported data suggests that ~70% experience improved and more stable incomes, alongside gains in food security.
We recognize the limitations of this data and are working to improve measurement and evaluation.
Questions for Feedback
I’d especially appreciate input on:
Closing
These commitments are a work in progress, and we expect to refine them significantly over time.
I’d genuinely appreciate critical perspectives—especially where this framework might be incomplete, unclear, or misleading.
Thank you for engaging.
—
Michael Agundah, Gerry
Communication & Fundraising Lead
Samia Widows Aid & Protection Center (SWAPC)
I think the devil is in the details. The principles are fine but what really matters is the operationalization. Hard to tell without more information about the program.
Thanks, Clara — I think that’s a very fair point.
I agree that principles by themselves are relatively easy to endorse and that the real question is whether they meaningfully shape operational decisions and outcomes in practice.
At the moment, our framework is still at an early stage and one reason for sharing it here was precisely to pressure-test whether the commitments are concrete enough to influence implementation rather than remain aspirational.
Operationally, our current model centers on widows’ self-help groups and combines:
We’re also beginning to think more seriously about questions like:
I suspect our next post should probably focus much more concretely on implementation details, measurement and trade-offs rather than principles alone.
If there are particular operational aspects you think are most important to clarify, I’d genuinely appreciate the guidance.