By Noah Weaver

1. Who is Noah?

Noah is someone who strives to make the lives of others better. Noah is someone who is not afraid to do the right thing, even if that means it’s a difficult path. He is someone who values integrity and service to others, particularly to those who are disadvantaged.

2. How will you change the world?

I will change the world by bringing humanity into my everyday life both professionally and personally. As an aspiring physician, I will change the world by sincerely treating each one of my patients as a human first. By doing this, I will be able to bridge gaps between people normally hesitant to receiving care due to discrimination, prejudgment, life circumstances, or fear. By understanding that each of my patients is also a person, I will provide the best care possible by showing authenticity.

3. What do you want your epitaph to read?

Noah was a man who valued the lives of others as much as he values his own life. Noah lived every day with his heart full, and enjoyed bringing healing to the lives he was fortunate enough to touch. Among his life’s accomplishments, he is most proud of is the legacy he left behind to inspire others to follow a humanitarian blueprint in their own lives.

Living an Impact-Focused Life

By Noah Weaver

What’s your Why?

I believe I was put on this earth to:

Leave a long-lasting, positive impact on humanity.

My purpose is to:

Heal those in need, including (but not limited to): medical and emotional needs of the disadvantaged under-resourced.

I believe (my core values):

Are integrity, respect, fairness, empathy, and service to others.

The one thing I must do before I die is:

Know that I positively impacted the world in such a way that inspires others to do the same, and “pass the baton” on to the next generation of public servants.

My advocates and supporters all believe I:

Have unequivocal integrity and passion for bettering the lives of others through my work.

The evil I want to eradicate in this world is:

Public misinformation campaigns designed to distract us from what matters and the lack of empathy that is “justified” by such misinformation campaigns.

I want to work in order to:

Live a comfortable life and simultaneously sustain my life’s higher purpose.

Walk the Talk – Your How

If you are truly committed to your Why, you show it in your everyday behavior. It is all air until you do it. Working from your Why, How do you prove that you are true to your Why in all you do?

I always:

Give my best effort in anything and everything that I do.

I never:

Do anything without a greater purpose or loss of integrity (even if it’s to my own detriment).

My work style is:

Focused, efficient, and communicative.

I try to treat people:

With fairness: I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but I also remember that the door swings two ways.

I approach problems by:

Thinking of why something occurred and attempting to understand the nature of the problem first. From there, I work to find solutions that satisfy all parties to the greatest extent possible.

Victories are time to:

Celebrate your accomplishments and enjoy yourself, but also to give credit to those who have earned it as well.

If another attacks my point of view I:

Try to understand their perspective and meet them halfway (if possible).

If I fundamentally do not agree with what an organization or person is doing, I will:

Go out of my way to avoid working with that organization or supporting any aspect of their business.

Your Credibility – Your Whats

You have just spent some considerable time at Lehigh, and specifically in the Global Social Impact Fellowship, on many whats. Your whats include lab research, formal presentations, writing research papers, engaging with people in other cultural contexts, building prototypes, designing and building systems, raising funds, hiring employees, etc. The whats you have collected along the way are critical to your credibility when you are entering the workforce or applying to the best graduate and professional schools. They signify a credible currency to which organizations can assign value. Create a list of your Whats that are truly reflective of your Why & How.  You did these things because you believe (Why) and you acquired them in the following (How) manner. These are examples you can use in interviews.

What Have I Done	List of Experiences, Accomplishments, and Lessons Learned
Degrees, Minors, Certificates, Fellowships	Degrees: A.S. in Biological Science, B.S. in Molecular Biology (2023)   Fellowships: GSIF, MTSE   Certificates: Basic Life Support (BLS), Social & Behavioral Research, Human Research for Biomedical Researchers, Good Clinical Practice, Protecting Research Participants, Leadership, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving (Competency),
Research Experiences	Biomedical Research Internship at St. Luke’s, GSIF
Inventions and Innovations	Ukweli data collection and analysis
(Social) Entrepreneurial Ventures	Ukweli Test Strips
Publications (Formal and Informal)	Data-Centric Operations Design for Disseminating a Biomedical Screening Technology: A Case Study.   A Systematic Review of WhatsApp Application Trends in Healthcare.   POC Screening, Diagnostics and Health Outcomes in Low-Middle-Income Countries: A Case Study of Ukweli Test Strips.   An Analysis of Community Health Workers’ Use of a WhatsApp Communication Network.
Formal Presentations (at Lehigh and Beyond)	GSIF mid-semester presentation (Spring 2020 and Fall 2020) GSIF final presentation (Spring 2020 and Fall 2020) GHTC (October 2020)
Awards and External Recognition	Paige L’ Hommedieu Scholarship, Stabler Scholarship, NCC Student Senate Scholarship (x2), Louis Moore Pine Scholarship (x2), NCC Foundation Scholarship, Joseph P. Liberati Memorial Scholarship, GELH Grant,

 

Articulating and learning from GSIF-related Experiences. For each of these prompts, we want you to identify one and only one specific and compelling event/incident/experience/moment and identify exactly how you grew personally and professionally through that moment.

Teamwork Experience (and Lessons Learned)	Equitably distributing workload- this must be discussed up front (e.g. during weekly group meeting). I grew from this by understanding how to set clear expectations among group members to avoid conflicts later. We specifically set team expectations at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester.
Fieldwork Experience (and Lessons Learned)	N/A
Conflict Resolution Experience (and Lessons Learned)	Our group and I discussed with Khanjan how we felt not all group members were giving the fellowship their best effort and the strain it was putting on some group members. We were able to have a tough conversation and reset expectations, and we now seem to be turning the corner a bit.
Leadership Experience (and Lessons Learned)	You have to offer the opportunity for group members to take ownership and accountability for their work. That means giving credit when credit is due, but also being honest when someone isn’t performing to expectation. Leadership is just as much about knowing when to step back and let the group lead itself and knowing when to intervene and take charge when necessary. An example of this would be when I established near-daily communication with our distribution manager when no one else took the initiative. I did not necessarily know if it was my place to do so, but I decided that someone needed to step up for the advancement of our project goals, and it ended up working out thus far.
Dealing with Chaos, Ambiguity, and Uncertainty (and Lessons Learned)	Taking each challenge one step at a time is essential. Multiple times, I have had to discuss with our group members about taking each thread one step at a time to avoid causing a panic for us as individuals. By adopting the attitude of “we will do the best we can, and whatever happens is what happens” allows a lot of stress to be relieved and, paradoxically, greater efficiency to be achieved while working. A good example includes the irregular scheduling of our pre-WhatsApp study interviews. Our distribution manager usually only let us know the day before an interview was to be conducted, and this required careful coordination and balancing of everyone’s schedules in order to make the study work.
Personally Challenging Experience (and Lessons Learned)	Recently, my family pet died. This pet helped me through some of the most challenging moments of my life. Unfortunately, I was also the one who had to make the tough decision to euthanize our family pet when others were too scared to make that decision (because it was the right thing to do: the pet went into multiple system organ failure).   I was unable to find motivation to do much course work for a couple days, but I was communicative with my professors about how I was feeling and they were surprisingly understanding. I have been able to mentally recover enough to continue working, and I also allow time for myself to grieve in a healthy way when necessary. I learned that it’s okay to acknowledge when I am feeling weak, and that people tend to be more understanding than they may seem on the surface.
Cross-cultural Experience (and Lessons Learned)	Speaking with individuals in Sierra Leone requires extremely direct communication. For quite a while, I felt uncomfortable communicating with our Distribution Manager because of how unfamiliar I was with the cultural norms of SL. However, by relying on iterative feedback from Khanjan, my group members, and seeking advice from those whom I trust, I have been able to adapt to this challenge and appreciate the complexities of human interaction and cross-cultural interaction. I learned that I have to be comfortable with uncomfortable interactions for the betterment of the project (e.g. it’s sometimes uncomfortable for me to be too forceful with someone despite that being their style of communication).
An experience that helped you connect your GSIF work to your discipline / major.	Hearing the stories from CHWs during our WhatsApp Communication Study pre-interviews and how our work effects (to a degree) the ability of mothers in Sierra Leone to receive treatment is meaningful to me. Remembering that I study molecular biology in order to understand human life and make it better is what allows me to connect the impact of the GSIF program to my major.
A moment that boosted your sense of agency and self-efficacy – you felt like you can speak for yourself, get stuff done, take on the world and make it better.	I felt greater self-efficacy when I answered questions at GHTC and during our presentations. For quite a long time, it was difficult for me to overcome public speaking anxiety to the point that I couldn’t form original thoughts in front of large groups of people. Now, I feel I have been able to conquer one of my biggest fears and as if I can do anything I set my mind to.
A moment where you felt like you truly have a strong sense of purpose and belonging in this dynamic, globalized interdependent world.	I felt a greater sense of belonging when I realized that I had a specific set of skills that my group members do not also possess (just as they, too, possess skills that I do not have). The ability for me to uniquely contribute to the Ukweli project in a meaningful way made me feel a stronger sense of purpose and a sense of belonging.

 

GSIF Conceptual Framework

Traditional Framework

By Noah Weaver, Spencer Moros, Anneke Roy, and Skyler Martinez

The Traditional framework shows faculty members who benefit by passing on knowledge through the act of education. The students benefit from this by completing their degree requirements through the completion of academic exercises that culminate in their GPA. At the end of it all, students get jobs, which is the “end-point” of the traditional education system. All are enclosed within the box of Lehigh University because this traditional education system may support the faculty, students, and each of their goals, but the traditional model is not inventive. Because the traditional model is so generic, the framework is within a box because no “outside the box” thinking can occur. Furthermore, the flow of the chart is intentionally from top-to-bottom because it is the standard flow of a traditional education system: the University allows the faculty to hold their positions and the faculty pass on their knowledge to the students. The students then meet their GPA requirements and obtain a typical “9-5” job.

 

The GSIF conceptual framework shows that Lehigh University supports the students, faculty, ventures, and GSIF program as a whole. The students and faculty mentors are both setting out to impact systems for the greater good. Instead of the top-down approach in the traditional system, the students and faculty mentors accomplish their impact-driven work by working as equals (which is incredibly progressive compared to the traditional framework). The students and faculty mentors work together to form ventures that seek to accomplish self-sustaining systemic change in their target environment specific to the context each venture operates within. The ventures, students, and faculty mentors comprise the GSIF program as a whole with the weight of real-world impact (represented by the earth) on the entire system. This approach is bottom-up to represent the limitless possibilities of this newer model, and the circular shape of the entire framework represents the continuity of the work: that is, real-world impact is both limitless and an iterative process.

The GSIF framework is profoundly different from the norm: the students and faculty work as partners (not at the command of the faculty mentor) through social-driven systemic change (instead of mere academic exercises). The students and faculty are attempting to accomplish this through social ventures (instead of simply performing basic research and publishing an article in a journal). The two groups are doing this because they care about self-sustaining systemic change that is bigger than any one person can accomplish, and much more impactful than an “inside-the-box” education can allow for (instead of performing academic exercises for nothing more than raising one’s GPA). Both the students and faculty mentors, and the ventures they comprise held up by the foundation of Lehigh University allow for real-world impact to be achieved. The University, students, faculty, ventures, and GSIF as a whole receive the satisfaction of creating systemic change: this program is much more intensive than a typical educational program, and nobody participating in the program is there for much more than changing systems (and the world) for the better (instead of simply gaining employment after completion of education). However, we all learn new skills along the way, but that is a secondary gain.

Maternal Health Coalition Conceptual Framework

Ukweli Conceptual Framework

The Maternal Health Coalition Framework highlights the three systemic challenges that lead to the increased maternal mortality rate in Sierra Leone: 1) long travel distances, 2) cultural beliefs, 3) financial barriers to affordable testing. Each one of the systemic challenges is accompanied by a specific root (e.g. under-resourced patient health education leaves communities to rely mostly on cultural belief systems). The systemic challenges lead to the clinical manifestations the Ukweli venture focuses on- urinary tract infections (UTIs) and preeclampsia (which leads to eclampsia if left untreated). UTIs and preeclampsia contribute significantly to the culmination of the world’s highest maternal mortality rate.

The Ukweli Conceptual Framework shows how our venture addresses such systemic challenges. The base of the pyramid is composed of the three pillars of the Ukweli venture: our solution is specific, affordable, and accessible. Underneath each of the pillars is a specific manifestation of how our system provides the foundation needed to address the maternal mortality rate in Sierra Leone. The midsection of the pyramid shows the two primary methods the system currently utilizes to expand the venture’s reach and impact: patient education (which is provided by the certified Ukweli Health Workers during the screening process) and the newly-launched WhatsApp Communication Network meant to enhance the support for the UHWs. The grey triangles that touch each portion of the pyramid represent the coalition formed by the Lehigh Team and Ukweli team in Sierra Leone under the umbrella of World Hope International. Each of these units has a distinct role and is critical to the success of the Ukweli venture as a whole. These three key partners are specifically touching each portion of the pyramid to show that all partners have a hand in the ultimate goal of the venture shown at the top of the pyramid: lowering the maternal mortality rate in Sierra Leone.

By Noah Weaver

In order to solve the corruption issues associated with the police force of Afghanistan, as the theoretical Chief of Police, I would eliminate the commander’s pay for each officer under their command, as well as institute a peer accountability system by providing a financial incentive to officers that identify any of their peers guilty of corruption (that is simultaneously presented with reasonable evidence AND results in the conclusion that the officer reported engaged in illegal/corrupt activities). An independent review board would conduct an assessment of each individual tip provided to a highly-confidential tipline, and termination of employment and criminal prosecution to the fullest extent possible would be pursued for retaliation against any officer who reports corruption issues in good faith.

In order to further incentivize officers from allowing themselves to engage in corruption, the financial incentive for the reporting officer of violations of serious policies and/or laws would be taken directly from that officer’s salary. Any cases that are a result of accusations under false pretenses will result in that officer’s pay being given directly to the officer initially accused of corruption. This will minimize the possibility of filing false accusations for the sake of getting the financial incentive for reporting a peer that is found to have engaged in illegal activity/corruption. By utilizing this solution, interdependence is considered because those who remain complicit in the engagement of illegal activity by their peers are just as guilty as the offending officer: thus, they could also be reported under this system. As a result, each officer has both a civic duty and a financial incentive to hold themselves and their peers accountable.

This solution also considers holism because the solution proposed recognizes that no one person can solve this problem alone. It will take a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach, to effectively eradicate corruption. This solution also considers differentiation as particularly important through the establishment of the Independent Officer Conduct Review Board that investigates each individual case. By allowing one centralized board to review cases without a vested financial interest for themselves in either proving or disproving the corruption of individual officers, they are able to effectively consider the individual components of the entire Afghani police force. Finally, regulation is the centerpiece of this solution because a standard set of operations, policies, and procedures will encourage a level playing field between officers. By having a self-sustaining peer accountability system, the system itself (the Police Force) will perform more predictably and lessen the randomness of each individual officer. The accountability system also rewards officers who are conducting their work with integrity and the creation of a culture of shared accountability will boost each officer’s morale because they are contributing to the greater good with a financially sustainable solution.

Water Hyacinth

In order to solve the water hyacinth issue, a system that is similar to the redemption of recyclable plastics for a set price would work well. This type of system would be available only to residents of the shore communities impacted by the water hyacinth problem. This way, outsiders cannot gain access to their land, the residents are able to earn a “slice of the pie” for themselves, and the entrepreneur can resell this hyacinth at a greater cost in order to make a profit for themselves. This solution particularly considers abstraction: when considering the shore communities from a broader perspective, they are likely upset at how well the business was doing previously and that no financial incentive was directly offered to them by allowing the removal of the hyacinth from an outside entrepreneur. They likely only want a way to sustain life for themselves, and by allowing them the opportunity to redeem hyacinth themselves, a self-sustaining system is created with minimal effort on the front-end by the entrepreneur, and residents have the ability to provide for themselves and their families in a consistent manner. This solution also makes use of leverage points because of the small change in the design of the collection of the hyacinth. This change does not affect the entrepreneur in a negative way, and it benefits the residents of the community both financially and professionally. Furthermore, the fishermen still have access to the water and that industry can still operate.

 

By Noah Weaver, Anneke Roy, Spencer Moros, and Skyler Martinez

• World Hope International
  • What constituted the partnership? 
    • Khanjan provided the relationship developed through a history of other projects
  • How did the partner help you? 
    • Provide in-country resources: offices, motorcycles, employees, provide strong basis of support which WHI has created over decades of involvement, legal coverage
  • How did you help them? 
    • Provide bandwidth and intellectual resources with the goal of improving the living conditions of people of Sierra Leone, provide access to other funding opportunities not usually open to non-profit organizations
  • Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
    • Yes this is a symbiotic relationship because as we become more successful we have more to offer and the more WHI is 
  • What would help strengthen the partnership and make it more equitable?
    • Create a contract for the partnership
    • Create a profit-sharing scheme for the future if the venture is profitable
• Ukweli Distribution Manager
  • What constituted the partnership?
    • WHI hired Hassan to work full time on the Ukweli venture. Hassan is well known in his community and has served in public health capacities for several years.
  • How did the partner help you?
    • Hassan has allowed Ukweli to distribute its test strips directly to CHWs, expand the venture’s reach by training CHWs to become UHWs, as well as collect relevant data needed for us to show the depth and breadth of Ukweli operations. Perhaps most significantly, Hassan has provided extensive social capital to Ukweli.
  • How did you help them?
    • We are able to help Hassan have a regular salary that allows him to not worry as much about financial obstacles in his life. He also is able to make a positive impact in his community, and being able to combine self-preservation with the advancement of the needs of others is, in my opinion, the ideal professional situation.
  • Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
    • Yes; both the Lehigh team and Hassan are able to mutually benefit in a manner that would not be achievable by either party independently. If Hassan did not have Ukweli/Lehigh, he would likely struggle with finding consistent work/pay needed to survive. On the flip side, the Lehigh Team would be greatly hindered in its ability to access hard-to-reach communities within Sierra Leone without the social capital provided by Hassan.
  • What would help strengthen the partnership and make it more equitable?
    • It would be more equitable if we could find a way to give Hassan more bandwidth by hiring another employee. The workload that Hassan is responsible for is considerably greater than when the venture first started, and I am concerned about how equitable it is for Hassan to continue being responsible for the setup of new PHUs/CHWs in addition to the increasing number of previously-onboarded PHUs and CHWs.
• Ministry of Health and Sanitation of Sierra Leone
  • What constituted the partnership?
    • A Temporary Service Level Agreement that allows us to sell and distribute the test strips across Sierra Leone.
  • How did the partner help you? 
    • They give us the legal ability to sell our test strips.
  • How did you help them?
    • We are actively working to help increase screening for UTIs and Preeclampsia in pregnant women in an attempt to lower the Maternal Mortality rate.  This helps them because maternal death is a huge health issue in Sierra Leone. 
  • Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
    • This is a symbiotic relationship because through our work that they approved, we are aiming to solve or at the very least help a major health crisis in Sierra Leone. In return, we are able to take this model and show its usefulness in the existing healthcare system of Sierra Leone.
  • What would help strengthen the partnership and make it more equitable?
    • More consistent data reporting (as outlined per our agreement) would allow the Ministry of Health and Sanitation of Sierra Leone to regularly see what progress Ukweli makes towards combatting the maternal mortality rate.
• PHUs/CHWs
  • What constituted the partnership?
    • Distribution manager initiates and upholds relationships with PHUs, which further allows us access to connections to that unit’s CHWs.
  • How did the partner help you? 
    • PHUs give us access to trained healthcare professionals within that local region; they are the direct connections to screening and referring the patients.
  • How did you help them?
    • We incentivize the CHWs buy selling them boxes of test strips and allowing them to sell the strips at an increased price for profit. 
  • Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not?
    • Yes, this is a symbiotic relationship. The skeleton of our venture is based on the efforts and data collected by the CHWs we partner with, and they are able to make an earning through the selling of test strips.
  • What would help strengthen the partnership and make it more equitable?
    • With our WhatsApp communication system, we are hoping to strengthen our partnerships with the individual CHWS and PHUs by creating a line of communication between the Lehigh team and them.  Through this, we can have open communication between our partners and make it more equitable. 
• Lehigh University
  • What constituted the partnership? 
    • The Ukweli venture’s intellectual/innovator team members are students of Lehigh University.
  • How did the partner help you? 
    • Lehigh University provides the reputation of academic excellence and enhances the credibility of the students working on the venture.
  • How did you help them? 
    • By advancing the Ukweli venture, we are able to further enhance the reputation of Lehigh University and provide the university with an avenue to attract incredibly talented students.
  • Was this a symbiotic relationship? Why or why not? 
    • Yes, because we both enhance the other’s credibility through this partnership. As a result, both the students of the Ukweli venture and Lehigh University as an institution benefit.
  • What would help strengthen the partnership and make it more equitable?
    • The partnership could be strengthened with more financial capital being given to the Ukweli venture- this is necessary in order for the venture to continue operating and subsequently furthering the reputation of Lehigh University.

Individual Portion:

1. We are maintaining regular communication with each other and having much less frequent instances of gaps in communication (although this has occurred with some group members recently).
2. We are able to have honest and thoughtful discussions with each other in a respectful way. This means having tough discussions in a respectful manner (i.e. if someone isn’t doing their part, we are able to discuss that in a constructive manner).
3. Each of our friendships with each other has strengthened as time went on. We each feel a strong working relationship that has developed into lifelong friendships with each other. This helps us work harmoniously.
4. I have taken more of a leadership role within the team throughout the summer and now in the fall semester. I feel that the team trusts my judgement and I trust theirs. This is incredibly important when performing any type of teamwork.
5. I learned that not everything is task-oriented. There is a “give-and-take” aspect to working with people. Sometimes it is best not too push people too hard, other times it is better to force an issue. I.e. “pick your battles”. No situation is black and white, and this just comes with experience.
6. Meaningful relationships are the most important aspect to accomplishing the venture’s goals. People are much more receptive to you when you come from a place of caring, integrity, and respect for others. By showing this aspect first, you are much more likely to achieve meaningful results.
7. I don’t feel any one group member feels the need to “shoulder the responsibility” for the whole group on specific tasks. During the spring semester, some group members felt the need to do everything by themselves if something wasn’t done by a deadline. This semester, however, we have decided to know when to take a “hands-off” approach and strategically allow certain things to fail. Otherwise, we are enabling a lack of accountability. Paradoxically, letting things fail in the short term has led to more long-term successes.
8. A skill I have developed is knowing how to trust my team. In a fiercely independent society (at least in America), the attitude of “if you want something done right, you need to do it yourself” was my mantra. Since working with the team, I have learned that, although it may sometimes be the case, you need to provide your teammates with the opportunity to prove you wrong. If you do not provide that opportunity, you will be left alone to do everything yourself. With the issues we are attempting to solve, it is impossible to accomplish much of anything as an individual person simply because of how much work there is.
9. We are all much more responsive to communications from the distribution manager in Sierra Leone. Generally, someone will respond to his messages within an hour or two at the most, but more often than not one of us will respond within a few minutes. This is imperative for the work we do, because things tend to move a bit slowly when coordinating with the team in Sierra Leone due to a variety of factors, including limited internet connectivity.
10. We all feel empowered to do our work. In the beginning, it was easy to feel either unappreciated or misunderstood, but after having several tough conversations with each other and working closely together for an extended period of time, I believe that nobody in the group feels that our work is “work”. We each enjoy doing what we do for the greater good.

Collaboration Plan: 

 

Five areas of improvement:

1. Deliver concise answers, stop giving ‘roundabout answers
2. Know specifics of the product (numbers, projections, what’s working, what’s not, etc.)
3. Do not add onto an answer unless absolutely necessary (i.e. if a HUGE point is being missed by the first person: short of that, leave it alone)
4. Direct the focus from the strip itself to the system around the test strip
5. Stay away from details; focus on how getting your solution into the hands of end user

 

Questions:

1. What makes your product better than any competitors in the region? The product itself isn’t any better: it’s the system created around the product that makes Ukweli better. By integrating the strip into the pre-existing community health worker system, a method of distribution and trust with individual participants is established. The bare bones approach of the 3 parameter strip (instead of the standard 9-parameter) ensures that the strip is more affordable and accessible to underserved communities.
2. How does the 3-parameter test compare to the standard 9-parameter test in terms of specificity and sensitivity? 
   1. Our strip utilizes the same mechanism as FDA approved test strips in US; same specificity and sensitivity – unable to get testing for our own produced strips due to expense
      1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4408713/
   2. Repeated testing throughout pregnancy helps to reduce low specificity of the test
3. How do you establish trust with the communities you deserve? Do they have a distrust of Westerners? The CHWs (which are certified UHWs) are nominated by their communities to serve in such a capacity, and using Lehigh’s relationship with the non-profit WHI within Sierra Leone, we are able to establish as much trust as possible while maintaining accessibility to the strip.
4. How do you plan to establish relationships with other government agencies beyond Sierra Leone? We are utilizing our network as well as the network which our partner World Hope International currently has in other countries. We hope to leverage the support from the government of Sierra Leone and success on the ground to support the adoption of our venture elsewhere.
5. What are the preliminary results from the WhatsApp Communication Study Interviews? Currently, we are still working on transcribing and coding the interviews but as a group we have noticed some trends already. For example, cultural and language barriers have been a very common issue that’s come up when talking about educating women.  This can help us understand how we can shape our WhatsApp messages to be specific for the UHWs and the problems they’re facing. 
6. How do you choose participants for the WhatsApp Communication Study?
7. What metrics are you planning to measure during the WhatsApp Communication Study? The metrics themselves are partially shaped by the participants themselves. The overall goal of the study is to identify emerging themes through messages sent between the UHWs and the interviews of each participant. Such examples of what we might identify would be encouragement, clinical questioning, and advice, and then those would fall under the larger category of teamwork, and we can do those for multiple themes.
8. What issues have you identified during the WhatsApp Communication Study? Within the study, issues we have identified primarily revolve around internet connectivity concerns and reliable access to the internet for our UHWs. From the UHW perspective, we have come to reinforce our understanding of the challenges women of Sierra Leone face when seeking medical treatment (traveling distance, lack of time, lack of money).
9. How do you stay within the scope of your project without the “white savior” complex? We seek to ensure that any aspect of operations incorporates the collaborative nature and overall focus on the women, other locals, and government/medical operatives of Sierra Leone. For example, are pre and post-WhatsApp survey questions are designed to encourage honest and genuine answers from the UHWs who are involved to give us direct feedback. This would be opposed to pressuring them to falsely believe their feedback may influence or hinder they ties to Ukweli, this way we create a comfortable environment for all parties. 
10.  Where are the test strips produced? Our test strips are produced by an OEM in China.
11. Does your OEM engage in unethical treatment of minority populations? How do you address this from your perspective of a social venture? Beyond the fact that our OEM has all necessary regulatory approvals and meets all legal requirements set forth by China to operate, we don’t know. It is also not clear what demographic works for our OEM. As a social venture, we are only able to tackle so much at a given time, and our efforts need to remain concentrated on the exceedingly high maternal mortality rate in Sierra Leone and beyond.
12. How has COVID-19 impacted your venture? What adjustments have you had to make? I would say the biggest impact was on the new team because they were unable to travel to Sierra Leone this year.  It made it hard to really communicate and gain the trust of our distribution manager.  On the distribution of the test strips, the impact was pretty minimal besides a temporary price reduction in March from $50,000 to $30,000 due to economic hardships that CHWs and frankly everyone was experiencing.
13. How do you validate your data? In order to validate our data after paper copies are collected by our distribution manager from each PHU, our distribution manager enters these values into a google forum. This data automatically is populated into our data backbone. Additionally, the paper forms are scanned and emailed providing a redundant system to check the data through regular auditing by the Lehigh Team.
14. How do you know which specific Ukweli operations enhance screening participation? We have performed an analysis of our data using a method known as multiple linear regression analysis. This type of analysis allows us to find which metric(s) are the most influential on increased screenings. We looked at the data on a monthly basis between PHUs with a minimum number of x screenings, and found (insert here). *We still have to finish the write-up of the paper doing this analysis, but we will be able to answer this question fully by the time our presentations are due for submission.*
15. Have you considered looking at other metrics? If so, why/why not did you decide to evaluate them further? We have considered metrics such as the rate of follow-up care received by women who screened positive for any of the parameter within our test strip, but we have chosen to forego some valuable metrics because of the inconsistencies and lack of reliability associated with gathering them. In an LMIC setting, it is already difficult enough to gather reliable data on the strip itself where it’s a “once-and-done” situation (i.e. was the screening positive? If so, what?). However, following up with those same participants is an entirely different challenge by itself.
16. You mentioned in previous presentations that you were having some difficulties coordinating with your employee in Sierra Leone. How have you progressed since? Yes, we have. We have increased the frequency of our communications with our onsite employee and in the process have allowed a stronger bond and trust between the Lehigh team and him. Even through technical difficulties, he understands the importance of completing his duties given specific circumstances, as we develop a better understanding on ways we need to accommodate to his circumstances.
17. How do you incentivize UHWs to participate in the Ukweli screening program? The UHWs are able to buy the test strip boxes (50 strips in each) for roughly 25,000 SLLs, and they each can be sold at around 50,000 SLLs for them to turn a profit. 
18. How do you know the venture has actually had an impact on maternal mortality? Determining Ukweli’s actual impact on the maternal mortality rate in Sierra Leone is nearly impossible due to the lack of regularly-collected census data as well as the numerous ventures in the area that have the same goal as us.  However, we can look at our own personal metrics of success, like number of boxes sold and number of women screened and treated, in order to determine how successful the venture has been.   
19. What was the regulatory approval process to sell test strips in Sierra Leone?  We were required to complete a Service Level Agreement (SLA) between Ukweli and Ministry of Health and Sanitation which allows the venture to operate in Sierra Leone’s healthcare industry. Also, we obtained a Marketing License from the Pharmacy Control Board of Sierra Leone by providing information about the test strips and allowing us to sell the strips commercially.
20. Where do you plan to get more funding from?
    1. We are looking to a variety of charities that support initiatives and research for preeclampsia and maternal health. As of this moment, it is not clear where funding will specifically come from.

By Noah Weaver

1. The delicate situation at hand is that Jack does not want to disappoint the children that he interacts with regularly, but he also does not want to cause an uproar among the staff members in the process. Facts include:

• Jack is an American student working on a social venture
• he lives in a youth center for children under the age of 14
• most of the children were given gifts by Jack and the other staff members (four did not receive a gift: instead, they received black hats)
• Jack appears to accept some responsibility for four children not getting gifts when they were distributed to the children (despite the fact it’s through no fault of his own)
• the staff does not want to acknowledge that the four children not receiving gifts is an issue as they do not want to make a bigger deal out of it and cause a bigger problem
• Jack feels upset that the four children were left out
• Jack also does not want to damage his relationship with either the staff or the children
• Children feeling left out is handled differently in Kenya compared to the way it is in America; cultural expectations are different
• only one kid stared at Jack when walking away from him, but Jack interpreted this as all four kids being upset

2. The problem: Jack needs to solve the issue with the forgotten gifts while simultaneously maintaining an amicable relationship with both the children and staff of the youth center.

3. Stakeholders and Motivations:

• Jack
  • professional–> maintain relationships with children and staff of the youth center, potential financial incentives related to his venture, uphold the reputation of any organization (e.g. university, business) that he represents.
  • personal–>as an outsider to Kenya, he might want to be more of a “do-gooder”, wants to feel liked by the children
• Children
  • professional–>Not applicable
  • personal–> they want to feel included with the rest of their peers, they also might want a present to feel special
• Youth Center Staff
  • professional–>maintain the peace, receive praise without blame for things that are not directly their fault
  • personal–>avoid causing an unnecessary problem, help educate/entertain children of the youth center
• Social Venture
  • professional–> maintain rapport with locals in the area as they continue their operations, advance the needs of the venture without doing harm in the process
  • personal–> maintain rapport with locals in order to avoid causing lingering issues that can make it uncomfortable for them to be in Kenya
• Donors
  • professional–> reinforcing their relationship with the social venture
  • personal–> positively impacting their target population in Kenya

4.  Solutions:

• Solution A: Do nothing.
  • Pros: remain on good terms with the staff, most of the children are happy, no further effort required on Jack’s part
  • Cons: some of the children may still be upset, Jack still feels a bit guilty, Jack looks bad to a few of the kids
  • This saves face because it does not allow for the staff to be embarrassed by acknowledging any wrong-doing on their part, and it also keeps Jack from being publicly embarrassed by taking responsibility for something that was not his fault, either.
  • Implications on relationships: Some children are still upset with Jack and the staff will not be frustrated by Jack trying to fix something they do not believe is a problem (short-term). Jack will remain on good terms with the staff and all of the children (long-term), as the children who were upset will probably move on from this experience eventually.
  • Implications on the venture: Jack does not have to be concerned about causing any personal issues with the staff (short-term) and this will allow the venture to operate harmoniously. The venture will maintain a good working relationship with the youth center (long-term).
• Solution B: acknowledge the problem, apologize to the children, and give them new gifts out of Jack’s own pocket.
  • Pros: children might respect Jack more for acknowledging their feelings, mend hurt feelings of previously left-out children, Jack no longer feels guilty
  • Cons: children could potentially use this to take advantage of Jack, staff will become upset with Jack by causing more issues for them,
  • Saves face for Jack because the children will not hold ill-will towards Jack, however, this approach may sort of put the staff in a position they did not want to be in. This method, however, does not save face for the other parties involved (other than the children).
  • Implications on relationships: children are kept happy (short term), but the staff will feel like their feelings were ignored and this may cause hostility towards Jack (long-term)
  • Implications on the venture: the venture may be seen positively by the children (short-term), but the hostility of the staff towards Jack will undoubtedly hurt the venture’s goals more than help the venture’s goals (long-term).
• Solution C: Have Jack wear the black hat and make it seem cool to have one, too.
  • Pros: this indirectly addresses the issue with the children: they felt they weren’t given a cool gift in a ceremonious way, but Jack wearing the black hat will make them think they are cooler than the other kids. This also avoids disobeying the wishes of the staff and creates a situation where both the problem is resolved and harmony is maintained between Jack, the venture, the children, and the youth center staff.
  • Cons: this approach might make the other kids who did not receive a black hat feel jealous that they did not get a cool black hat, which may lead to more issues of hurt feelings. The approach is also very indirect and the children might be confused as to why the did not also receive a black hat (despite receiving a donated gift).
  • This saves face for everyone involved, including: Jack because he made each child feel included in the gift-giving, the staff because they do not have to confront Jack about his handling of the situation (that they did not view as a problem from the beginning), the children because they do not feel left out, and the venture and donor because they resolved a situation that avoids any awkward/heated confrontations.
  • Implications on relationships: children are not left out and they all feel they received something special (short-term), they will not hold ill will towards Jack (long-term). The staff will also likely be satisfied with Jack’s creativity (short-term) and maintain a good working relationship with Jack (long-term).
  • Implications on the venture: business as usual continues (short-term), and the venture’s likability/reputability is enhanced by giving out gifts in a thoughtful way (long-term).

Resources: The comment about wearing the hat that Khanjan mentioned during class forced me to think about the easiest way to solve this issue. By wearing the hat, no direct confrontations or aggression are likely to arise and respect is given to the cultural context that Jack is working in. As he is an outsider in this community, he must respect the wishes of the youth center staff and how they handle these issues.

Chosen Solution: Solution C.

• This solution is the best one because it avoids causing any confrontation or volatile situation, it satisfies the children who originally felt left out, it keeps the staff from having much reason to get upset at Jack. This solution was chosen over doing nothing because that does not allow Jack to alleviate his feeling of guilt and it does not resolve the hurt feelings of the children who felt left out. This solution was also chosen over the direct method of intervention because of the confrontations that would arise with the staff because they would feel that Jack is circumventing their authority and disrespecting their culture. As an outsider, Jack is not in much of a position to blatantly disregard the youth center staff’s wishes. The lingering hostility on the part of the youth center staff would undoubtedly irreparably harm the goals of the venture, too. The avoidance of confrontation, respect for the staff’s wishes, and respect for the children’s feelings save face for everyone involved so that nobody needs to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever.
• Short-term implications on relationships:
  • pros: children that felt left out are now satisfied because they think it’s cool to wear a black hat like Jack; indirectly solving this problem avoids the opportunity for a confrontation with the youth center’s staff; Jack also feels satisfied with himself for correcting the issue
  • cons: some children might become jealous of not being given a hat; some staff members might still be upset that Jack did anything at all to correct something that they did not feel was an issue (although this will likely be an underwhelming number that feels as such);
• Long-term implications on relationships:
  • Pros: children will fondly think of Jack, Jack will also be able to maintain a good rapport with the staff, Jack’s efforts will be seen as positive/thoughtful and make it easier for him to establish new relationships outside of this area of Kenya as his venture expands (assuming that is what they do)
  • Cons: N/A
• Short-term implications on the venture:
  • pros: the venture continues to operate normally, Jack’s association with the venture (by extension) will increase community acceptance of the venture and it’s goals because Jack was thoughtful enough to be respectful to both the children and the staff’s wishes
  • Cons: Some staff members may negatively view the venture initially due to not feeling like credit was given to them for their part in the gift-giving, some children might also still associate Jack with the venture in a negative connotation for not being given as cool of a gift as the kids who were initially left out
• Long-term implications on the venture:
  • Pros: the community will not associate negativity with the venture, the staff of the youth center will likely have forgotten about the “bump in the road” and be more receptive to helping advance Jack’s social venture, the venture can use their (assumed) success to expand operations into other parts of Kenya
  • Cons: N/A
• This solution does not have any impact on the environmental, technological, or economic impact on the venture. However, from a social point of view, it will maintain a good rapport with all stakeholders in Kenya (children and youth center staff) and make it easier for the community to buy into the venture’s mission. This solution also saves face for everyone involved because it does not force anyone to acknowledge an issue or feel at fault for anything whatsoever.

Sequence of Events:

1. During the next period of the activity center, Jack should just show up wearing a black hat.
2. Play games with the kids and make it sound as if the black hat is magical and gives someone the same “powers” of Jack
3. Continue with the venture as planned.

Noah S. Weaver

Ethical Decision Making:

Problem: HIV transmission through breastmilk is much more likely as children are breastfed over a longer period of time from an HIV+ mother. The proposed solution, however, makes HIV transmission much less likely but also utilizes crops that are treated with pesticides and potentially harmful to children.

Ethical Issue: Is it ethical to enable the use of pesticide-sprayed crops in the nutrition of children in order to minimize risk to another health condition (HIV)?

Facts:

• Stunted growth of 35% of children in a region of East Africa due to poor nutrition
• Gruel is fed to infants at 2 months of age to supplement breastfeeding nutrition
• Children are breastfed until 24 months of age
• WHO recommends exclusive breastfeeding until 6 months of age
• There is a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS in this region: the longer an HIV+ mother breastfeeds, the higher the chances of transmission
• Donor has donated money to establish a woman’s cooperative in the region
• The donor wants to establish shelf-stable and nutritious porridge from locally-grown produce to begin weaning children off of breast milk at 6 months of age
• 500 women in the area are interested in joining the cooperative
• Crops grown in the area are contaminated by pesticides
• High likelihood of pesticides ending up in the food of children

Stakeholders:

1. Children
   1. Motivated by hunger
2. Mothers of the children
   1. Motivated to feed their children
   2. provide the best care within their reach to the children
   3. a better livelihood for their families
3. Farmers
   1. Motivated to provide nutrition to their community
   2. Motivated by money for themselves to survive
4. Donor (Secondary)
   1. Positive impact on the lives of women and children in the region
   2. Increased reputation for themselves
   3. Motivated for success because they might be able to expand their operation to other areas using the same model
5. Researcher/Designer (Secondary)
   1. Motivated to make the most positive impact on the lives of women and children
   2. Enhanced reputation

3. Solutions:

Solution A: continue as originally planned by the women’s cooperative/donor.

• Ethical Code: risk of HIV exposure to children is minimized with the resources at hand.
• Pros:
  • lower likelihood of HIV transmission when children are weaned off of breastmilk at 6 months of age (instead of 2 years)
  • affordable nutrition that provides the necessary nutrients that the gruel is missing
  • shelf-stability and affordability makes it accessible to virtually anyone who may need it
• Cons:
  • High likelihood of pesticide contamination of food that can lead to negative/unintended health consequences
  • Unintended health consequences may lead to more harm than good (in some cases, probably not all of them)
  • This could be seen as taking advantage of a vulnerable population: i.e. a wealthy donor who comes in with knowledge beyond the community will likely be trusted blindly by community members and that donor’s decisions directly impact the lives of a lot of people who might not necessarily be able to fend for themselves

Solution B: Invest in HIV eradication techniques

• Ethical Code: Provides a multi-pronged approach that will have a deeply beneficial impact from both a social, humanitarian, and health perspective.
• Pros:
  • Solves the original problem indirectly (HIV+ transmission to babies through breastmilk)
  • Improves the health of both children and the mothers (not just the children)
  • Nutrition (by itself) will continue to be affordable as the diet will not necessarily need to be changed if children are continued to be breastfed until 2 years of age as usual
• Cons:
  • Extremely expensive problem to fix: this method will undoubtedly cost much, much more upfront than simply changing nutritional methods for the children
  • Incredibly time-consuming: HIV/AIDS eradication takes a sustained, long-term effort by every stakeholder involved. It will already be difficult enough to get every stakeholder to buy into this solution, and it will be even more difficult to get the stakeholder to sustain efforts as they will likely not see results in the near- or medium-term future
  • The complexity of technique: HIV transmission is spread through several different methods (mostly bodily fluids, IV drug use, etc.) and this will take a multi-pronged approach. The multiple methods that are required to genuinely eradicate HIV/AIDS require a lot of manpower from well-educated people: unfortunately, there is only so much manpower in the world that one can utilize to solve this issue.

Solution C: Continue breastfeeding children until 2 years of age, but redirect funding for porridge into supplementing nutrients that are left out of the gruel

• Ethical code: this allows for minimal outside influence and maintains the independence of the people in the region
• Pros:
  • The existing system is left completely intact with minimal invasion of outside influences
  • Minimal effort is required by the researcher or donor
  • Children are given all nutrients as required through their diet
• Cons:
  • HIV transmission is highly likely from mother to child due to extended period of breastfeeding
  • Depending on which nutrients are missing, this could potentially be expensive and/or difficult to integrate into the gruel
  • The donor’s original intent will likely not be as impactful as hoped

Chosen Solution: Solution A.

Solution A is the most realistically achievable solution that balances the short-term and long-term needs of the community and ensures financial feasibility without the loss of quality nutrition. Perhaps most importantly, this solution lowers the likelihood of HIV transmission from nursing mothers to their children. The porridge is affordable under these circumstances. The porridge will also be accessible to the entire community due to its shelf stability and affordability. This solution satisfies the highest set of ethical values because of its affordability, accessibility, and health-centered approach aimed at minimizing the risk of HIV exposure to children. Although this solution involves the risk of pesticide contamination, this method is still ethical because the crops grown in the area are already supplemented into the gruel under the existing methods of nutrition. As such, the children are not necessarily changing their risk to pesticide exposure, but they are lowering their HIV risk- the net outcome is positive.

Positive implications: this solution ensures the financial sustainability of the venture, assuming the venture is able to recover enough to cover the cost of producing and distributing the porridge. The farmers who provide the crops will have more money in their pockets and this will allow them to continue benefitting their communities through nutrition, enhancing the reputability of the venture. Finally, the reduced risk of HIV transmission due to less time breastfeeding is the socially responsible route to choose, and the time/effort put into providing affordable nutrition will increase the community’s trust in the venture as this shows the thoughtfulness of the venture’s stakeholders.

Negative Implications: this solution is not perfect. Long-term complications experienced by the children as they grow older (e.g. cancer) may have been caused by pesticide exposure (social/health issue), and although the venture is not changing the fact that children will be exposed to pesticides through cash/subsistence crops, they could be seen as a scapegoat and damage their reputation as a result. This solution can also be seen as environmentally irresponsible because the venture is actively encouraging the use of pesticides on crops by purchasing such products, and this could also be damaging to their reputation (e.g. if an environmental activist group began demanding a boycott of the porridge, all the good the venture accomplished may evaporate to a certain extent). This method also depends on the people buying into the product. It is very difficult to get people to buy into anything new (usually), and there might be some resistance to acceptance of the porridge. As a result, it will take more work upfront to implement.

Grassroots Diplomacy

Ethical Issue: how do we ensure that the money earned by the women working for the cooperative is used for needed purposes (e.g. feeding one’s family)?

Facts:

• The cooperative is thriving
• The women like their jobs and earn money while making a difference in their community
• The men of the families waste the money earned by their household’s women on unnecessary expenses like alcohol
• You are one of seven committee members on the leadership team that oversees the cooperative’s operations
• You only have six months left in your current term and will likely leave the cooperative completely after finishing the term
• The other six people on the leadership committee are women that fully understand the scope of this issue
• the women on the committee, like many others, are convinced that this is “just the way it is” and nothing can be done to prevent the men of their households from spending money on unnecessary expenses

 

Problem: the men of each woman’s household is spending money earned while working for the cooperative is spent on unneeded items

 

Stakeholders:

• women of the cooperative:
  • Personal motivations: want to feed their children, maintain familial relationships
  • Professional motivations: ensure the sustainability of the cooperative, make a positive impact in the community as a whole by doing so
• Children
  • Personal motivations: have enough food to be satisfied and healthy
  • Professional motivations: N/A
• Men in the community:
  • Personal motivations: use as much money as possible for unnecessary expenses such as alcohol
  • Professional motivations: N/A
• Farmers:
  • Personal motivations: sell as much crop as possible in order to sustain themselves
  • Professional motivations: Help the cooperative in order to feed nutritious meals to children of the community
• Researcher:
  • Personal: improve children nutrition, increase your own notoriety in this area of research
  • Professional: use increased notoriety to expand funding access to the cooperative, accomplish the original goal of the cooperative
• Donor (secondary):
  • Personal motivation: make a positive impact on the community through better nutrition of children and simultaneously increase their own notoriety/reputability in order to continue doing so
  • Professional motivation: accomplish the original goal of the cooperative and feed nutritious meals to children

Solution:

Ethical code: provide all stakeholders with a sort of middle-ground that ensures resources are equitably distributed.

• Establish a gift card system for the payment of the women exclusively for children’s food at the local markets. Provide a small cash payment for the women to take home to the men of the family.
  • Pros: women can feed the children of the community as originally intended, everyone is given a “slice of the pie” (men are given alcohol money, children are fed, etc.), and the women of the cooperative can continue socializing with each other
  • Cons: It may be difficult to integrate the credit system initially (assuming something of the kind is not already in place at the local markets), this does not keep all of the money to be used exclusively towards essential nutrition needs, it’s not the perfect solution, either.
• How does it save face?
  • This allows the men to spend money on things they want without feeling like they don’t get something in return by allowing the women to continue working in the cooperative (without making a fuss about doing so), this allows the women to also maintain the peace, and it makes the researcher/donor feel accomplished as this will allow them to accomplish the original goals of the venture
• Relationship implications:
  • Short-term: men will not be as satisfied with less money brought home, but will still be happy with the extra money for alcohol
  • Long-term: the family units of the community will maintain long-term peace as everyone is given something in return for their time, efforts, (or in the case of the men, “allowing” women to do their work)
• Venture implications:
  • Short-term: more porridge might be readily used by the community since this is the best nutritional option available
  • Long-term: the cooperative might be able to expand this model to other areas of East Africa in order to provide nutrition for more people
• Positive implications: This solution is the best way forward because it ensures that the original goal of the cooperative is accomplished (feeding the children), the women are able to feel good about themselves for feeding the children and continue to socialize with each other, the men are still happy (but maybe not as much as they were previously) for being given “free” money for alcohol and other frivolous things, and the researcher and donor also accomplish their goals by accomplishing the goals of the cooperative. The venture’s success may also be used to expand operations to other areas, as the success of the cooperative can be used as evidence to other governments to integrate the same thing into their existing systems (relationships-long term).
• Saves face: This also saves face for those involved because it maintains the general peace of each family unit and maintains the look of everyone doing their part to make a positive impact on the community by feeding their children with appropriate nutrition. This solution was chosen over other solutions because it is the only way to ensure accountability without overly-burdening any one stakeholder over the other (e.g. receipts will not be used as proof of purchase because they will be difficult for the cooperative to track in terms workload and reliability, cash is not given out for the entire pay since it will continue to be used inappropriately). This maintains the general peace and preserves relationships in both the short-term and long-term futures.
• Negative implications: from a social standpoint, not all of the money is used towards its originally intended purpose and this could be seen as enabling bad habits. This also is using up valuable resources that could be better spent on more nutrition or other necessities.  This solution will change the technology of the venture in terms of how they operate their cooperative model. The environment will see no net impact as crops with pesticides will be used regardless of whether or not this solution is chosen. Finally, this could lead to reliability issues with the gift card system’s use (e.g. a merchant refuses to accept it because they might not immediately see the cash) and this might cause the community members to blame the cooperative for starting trouble. 

Sequence of events:

• Ask the women why they believe nothing can be done about the problem (and truly listen to them: this will allow them to be more receptive to your proposed solution).
• Propose the solution to the women on the leadership of the cooperative.
• Assuming everyone is on board with it, we can begin by individually messaging the merchants in the area of the plan
  • The merchants can be reimbursed in cash by the venture for all credits received from women who purchased goods from their market
  • If merchants ask “what’s in it for me?” you will tell them that they will see increased sales since the women of the cooperative are only able to spend money on necessary food items for their children
  • Increased sales will be more than enough incentive to get them to cooperate
• Appoint one person of the leadership committee to be the “go-to person” for the oversight related to the credit system. This person might not necessarily have authority over anyone else, but they will be responsible for understanding and reporting on any future issues related to the credit system.