[ad_1]
Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, caused a stir last week by announcing a major philanthropic initiative that will spend $ 2 billion on homelessness and education. Called the Day One Fund, the project has two priorities: fund existing non-profit organizations that serve homeless families, and create a network of new non-profit nursery schools in low-income communities.
Two billion dollars is a huge sum, enough to transform many lives. The good that Bezos will do is commendable. Unfortunately, he could achieve far less than he could.
Interventions in early childhood have a difficult history; we do not know what works and some interventions can cause damage. The image of homelessness programs is a little more promising, but we still do not know much about the work that would be required to achieve Bezos' inspiring vision statement that "no child sleeps outside".
By choosing to focus his philanthropic attention on these projects, he seems to approach this initiative without the rigor and clarity he is proud of on Amazon. And starting with two causes already, Bezos is compromising his fund's ability to answer the question he's asked, "Where are the opportunities to make things better?
The difficult lessons of charitable interventions in education
The Bezos Day One Academies Fund will spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch and operate a range of nursery schools for low-income children. The problem is that it has already been tried – and we do not really know if it works.
We have been trying for a long time to educate early childhood, which produces lasting results for children. In the United States, the first attempt has been the pre-school education program for low-income families, funded by the federal government since the 1960s. There have been some studies with promising results, but many have also had success. wrong to detect any size effect.
On the side of pessimists, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that they barely improve outcomes for children – and that gains do not last, usually evaporating in first or second grade. A study conducted in 2010 by the Department of Health and Social Services showed that "the averages of all children, the benefits of access to Head Start to four years are largely absent in the first year." all subgroups that the program helps. He found some promising trends – maybe the program works for black children aged 3, but not for others – but also some subgroups in which the intervention seemed dangerous, such as children of depressed parents. (Subgroup analyzes like this often only make the noise worse, and I doubt that meaningful results can be obtained for any category.)
Many Head Start supporters are more optimistic about long-term results. Some researchers have found that Head Start makes people less likely to be arrested in their twenties. It is difficult to know what to do with these results. Longitudinal studies – the only one that would detect an effect like this – often do not completely control confounding variables, and it would be odd if Head Start had no effect for 10 years, and then considerable effects in adulthood. Then, maybe early childhood education benefits students in one way or another, we are still figuring out how to measure.
The mixed results are not limited to Head Start, either. A randomized controlled trial of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program revealed some effects early in kindergarten, but by the end of kindergarten, the remaining children had caught up. There was no effect in the following years (some analyzes showed a negative effect – on average, children in the program had a lower score than the control group).
One possible explanation for the mixed results is that some kindergartens are good and others bad. One of the studies that resulted in results under the preschool program found that children in their sample who attended pre-school institutions other than those benefiting from a program of pre-school education, did not participate in the program. preschool help were worse than children without pre-school children. Of course, there are also studies (like Perry's famous preschool experience) that have shown promising results for other kindergartens.
The most worrying aspect of Bezos' proposal, given this context, is its focus on scale. In his opening remarks, he set out a goal that seems too ambitious given the difficulty of moving forward in this area. He wrote that his fund would "launch and operate a network of preschool schools of high quality Montessorian inspiration. communities "and" create an organization to directly operate these kindergartens ".
It does not just want to fund pilot programs to find schools that perform better than previous interventions. Instead, he tries to build a network of schools from the start. But without any reason to expect something that works, there is no reason to improve it – and starting to scale is a great way to waste a lot of money, and even to hurt if your intervention Proves to be a bad idea.
The Homelessness Initiative could be more successful – but its impact could still be limited
The situation is a little more promising in the other field of intervention of Bezos.
Unlike pre-school education, where we still do not know how to achieve results that really benefit children, we know that spending on homelessness pushes people to the streets. A meta-analysis of dozens of RCTs on homelessness-based interventions revealed that housing programs first (which connect people without the need for qualification or compliance to complex conditions), as well as that the care programs
Disadvantage, we know less about the interventions best adapted to the specific population of homeless targeted by Bezos: the families. A meta-analysis of the homelessness intervention database resulted in interventions targeting homeless families, as there were simply no methodologically sound studies of interventions for homeless families. population. It seems likely that interventions that work for homeless people will work for families, but in philanthropy, interventions that "seem" to be likely to work are not.
On a more promising note, Bezos says he has partnered with existing organizations to tackle homelessness, rather than trying to start his own organization. This introduces a little less room for error. It is likely that his initiative will successfully accommodate some families – which is really commendable.
Bezos' $ 2 billion could have bigger impact elsewhere
For all the good he could do for the people he will reach, the Day One Fund of Bezos will realize much less than if he tried to do the best possible with $ 2 billion.
Is it fair to hold him responsible? I think so. Bezos said the founding questions of his fund are "Where is the good in the world and how can we spread it?" And "Where are the opportunities to make things better?" dedicated to answering these questions would be run.
Some charitable causes are much easier to manage and more effective than others. The benefits of success are greater and it takes less money and effort to move forward. This was a slow and painfully learned lesson in global development, where inexpensive, easy-to-treat, hard-hitting interventions – like giving everyone nets – receive more attention as donors of flashy interventions that do not walk. There is a growing consensus on development now that aid donors must prioritize the impact – spend their limited resources on the interventions that work best, whatever they are – that did not exist. 10 years ago.
The idea should not be new to Bezos. Among the CEOs of technology startups, Bezos is well known for methodically identifying the opportunity for Amazon. He saw that the Internet reflected a new unprecedented opportunity. He understood what kind of business would be able to take advantage of it. He ran this business instead of running different businesses.
What would it look like in the world of philanthropy?
In philanthropy, as in business, there are particularly important opportunities, easy to manage and neglected.
When there are teams on the ground to distribute more mosquito nets for malaria in Africa, but no one to provide nets for them to be distributed is a high-impact philanthropic opportunity. The supply of mosquito nets may allow more households to cover a net cost of a few dollars.
When researchers think they could design a meat free of suffering and slaughter that is competitive with factory-produced meat, but needs start-up funds to carry out their business, it is a philanthropic opportunity to impact.
When new research suggests that moderate money transfers reduce child mortality and have lasting effects, it is a high-impact philanthropic opportunity. You can organize studies on a larger scale and make these transfers available everywhere if the results are confirmed.
Most philanthropists, however, do not seem to be looking for these opportunities. (There are exceptions.) They do not seem to prioritize proof of their impact, and they do not seem to be doing what Bezos did so well when he launched Amazon: the world will look like 20 years from now.
In his annual letter to shareholders this spring, Bezos urged them to meet high standards in everything they did and to be aware that in new areas they could put the bar on the wall. in general and still have debilitating blind spots. There may be whole arenas where you can not even know that your standards are weak or nonexistent, and certainly not world class. It is essential to be open to this probability. "
He is right. High net worth individuals who venture into philanthropy venture into a new field and treat it as if they did not know it. They do not apply the same standards to their philanthropy that they apply to their businesses. It took decades, and billions of dollars wasted, to the Gates Foundation to realize that effective action in the not-for-profit world, such as effective action in the for-profit world, is difficult and requires specialized expertise.
I hope that Bezos will discover it sooner.
Source link
