Innovations for Poverty Action
 | |
| Founded | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Founder | Dean Karlan |
| Type | Nongovernmental organization |
| Focus | Poverty reduction research and impact evaluation, policy and advisory services |
| Location | |
Area served | Global |
Key people | Dean Karlan, Annie Duflo |
| Website | poverty-action |
Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) is a global research and policy nonprofit that generates evidence from rigorous research and shares it with policymakers to improve the lives of people living in poverty.
Through an open network of partners and researchers, IPA designs and tests innovative solutions, supports its partners to generate and use data and evidence through embedded policy labs and advisory services, and helps bring proven approaches to scale across the globe.
IPA has offices in 20 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, as well as projects in more than 30 other countries.
IPA’s budget in 2022 was USD $91.4 million.
As of 2023, IPA has conducted more than 950 evaluations in 52 countries, and its evidence-based solutions are conservatively estimated to have impacted more than 300 million people globally.
History
![[icon]](/enwiki/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion with: Basic organization data (budget, funding sources). You can help by adding to it. (February 2010) |
IPA was founded in 2002 by economist Dean Karlan to identify and promote solutions to global poverty through evidence generation.
In 2005, IPA launched its first country offices in Peru and the Philippines.
In 2013, IPA incubated the programs Deworm the World and Dispensers for Safe Water, both of which later became integrated into Evidence Action, an organization that uses evidence-based and cost-effective programs to reduce global poverty. The same year, IPA was named as one of six standout organizations by GiveWell and rated as a trusted charity by The Life You Can Save.
In 2019, IPA-affiliated researchers Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo, and Michael Kremer were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.”
In 2022, IPA celebrated its 20-year anniversary.
IPA’s budget in 2022 was USD $91.4 million.
Research Methods
IPA uses rigorous quantitative methods to conduct impact evaluations of programs and policies. It is historically noted for its use of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). IPA complements rigorous quantitative impact evaluations with in-depth qualitative and mixed methods analyses.
Several studies involving IPA’s non-RCT research methods include:
Combating fraudulent and predatory fintech apps with machine learning: This evaluation used machine learning models to flag suspicious financial apps on the Google Play store.
Can you spot a scam? Measuring and Improving Scam Identification Ability: Researchers in Kenya conducted social media analysis, focus groups, and online surveys to measure whether the provision of information about common features of fraudulent messages could help users correctly identify scams.
Life Out of the Shadows: Impacts of Amnesties in the Lives of Migrants: Researchers in Colombia collected administrative data from the government to identify the impact of a regularization program for Venezuelan migrants.
Sectoral Work
As of 2023, IPA has over 950 evaluations completed or in progress in 52 countries. It has ten sector programs: agriculture, consumer protection, education, entrepreneurship & private sector development, financial inclusion, health & nutrition, human trafficking, intimate partner violence, peace & recovery, and social protection.
Advisory Services
In 2017, IPA launched the Right-fit Evidence Unit to help organizations catalyze their data and evidence efforts. The Right-fit Evidence Unit supports implementing partners to find a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) approach – including the initial design of MEL frameworks and theories of change, through data collection, analysis, and broader dissemination – that fits their needs to build proper systems, processes, and teams for program development.
In addition, IPA’s Right-Fit Evidence Unit supports funders to advance learning and evidence-driven management to increase the efficiency and impact of their funds and accelerate progress toward reducing poverty.
Finally, IPA advises partners in accurate poverty measurement through the Poverty Probability Index (PPI). The PPI is a survey containing questions about a household’s characteristics and asset ownership to determine the likelihood the household lives in poverty.
Evidence Use
IPA works to ensure the evidence it generates is locally driven and sustainable. To do so, it equips partners in the public sector to generate, access, and use evidence through Embedded Evidence Labs, which institutionalize evidence use to improve decision-making, policies, and programs.
In 2015, IPA launched its first innovation lab, called MineduLAB, housed within the Peruvian government’s Ministry of Education. MineduLAB pilots and evaluates the effectiveness of low-cost education innovations to equip the Ministry of Education to use evidence to improve education outcomes throughout the country. IPA also has existing evidence labs within Colombia’s Attorney General’s Office, Ghana’s Ministry of Education, Nigeria’s Central Bank, the Philippines’ Supreme Court, Rwanda’s Basic Education Board, and Zambia’s Ministry of General Education.
IPA works with partners to initiate and accelerate the process of moving promising evidence-based interventions from proof-of-concept to scalable and adaptable programs and policies. This includes assessing how robust the original findings are, pursuing additional evidence on when, where, and why an approach is expected to work, and identifying ways to optimize program design and implementation at scale.
The Impact of IPA's Work
IPA’s research is estimated to have impacted more than 300 million lives. The following evaluations are examples of the organization’s impact:
Malaria Bednets: A 2007 IPA evaluation in Kenya found that selling (as opposed to giving away) insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) to pregnant women reduced their usage. These findings inspired governments and development organizations to reconsider their policies regarding charging money for health services to those living in poverty. In response, governments and development organizations began providing ITNs to pregnant women for free.
School-based Deworming: An IPA evaluation in Kenya found that school-based deworming of students significantly improved health and school attendance. Follow-up research showed that deworming also increased the percentage of girls who passed a primary school exam and attended secondary school, and increased the hours worked for men who were in treatment schools as children. In response, school-based deworming campaigns have been scaled-up in Ethiopia, India, and Kenya, reaching millions of children.
Chlorine Dispensers for Safe Water: An IPA evaluation in Kenya found that installing free chlorine dispensers at point-of-water-collection sites increased use of the dispensers and increased access to safe drinking water. The Dispensers for Safe Water program was taken over by Evidence Action and scaled to reach more than four million people in East Africa. Researchers associated with the evaluation produced a meta-analysis report in 2022 to assess the cost-effectiveness of chlorine-related water treatment interventions and found a cost per expected disability-adjusted life year (DALY) due to water treatment of USD $40, “45 times lower than the widely used threshold of 1x GDP per capita per DALY averted.”
Cash Transfers: IPA evaluations around the world have shown that cash transfers — both conditional and unconditional — have led to significant positive impacts for recipients. These findings changed the debate about giving money to people living in poverty, and have helped the main organization administering unconditional cash transfers, GiveDirectly, raise substantial funds to provide grants to more people living in poverty.
The Ultra Poor Graduation Approach: Evaluations by IPA and J-PAL (a similar organization that runs randomized evaluations on global poverty interventions) in six countries showed that graduation — an approach targeting multiple areas of livelihood at once — is successful in bringing households out of poverty. This model has been implemented by governments and aid organizations in 35 countries and is reaching millions of people.
Rethinking Microcredit: Beginning in the early 2000s, microcredit had been viewed as an effective strategy to reduce poverty. However, in 2015, IPA and J-PAL evaluations in six countries found that microcredit on average did not reduce poverty or lead to significant empowerment for women. This led to a shift in how aid organizations invested in anti-poverty interventions, and how microfinance institutions opened financial access to people in poverty.
Teaching at the Level of the Child: Research implemented by IPA and partners has shown that reorienting teaching to the level of the student, rather than the rigid expectations of a curriculum, consistently improves learning outcomes. IPA works with government partners to implement this approach at scale in Ghana, Zambia, and elsewhere.
Sustainable Transformation of Youth in Liberia: Researchers in Liberia found that cognitive behavioral therapy paired with cash transfers significantly (and cost-effectively) reduced violent behavior of at-risk young men over ten years. This program has been replicated across the world. (Video)
Promoting the Use of Masks: IPA and partners conducted a large-scale randomized evaluation in rural Bangladesh to rigorously test various strategies to increase mask-wearing to prevent the spread of respiratory disease. Results showed that a four-part model to change social norms of mask-wearing tripled mask use at a low cost and was sustained ten weeks into the intervention, even after the mask promotion ended. The model was implemented in Bangladesh and India during the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2023, Cochrane published a study reviewing mask-wearing interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19. While there was a high risk of bias, variation in outcome measurements, and low adherence to interventions — limiting firm conclusions — the study found uncertainty about the effect of face masks and no clear reduction in respiratory and viral infection from surgical or medical masks.
