A claim that local violence (individual crime and enslavement) is now a primary cause of extreme poverty, and it’s crucial and possible to improve police and government enough to make a big difference.
Recently, the Gates Foundation funded a project in the second largest city of the Philippines, where local advocates and local law enforcement were able to transform corrupt police and broken courts so drastically, that in just four short years, they were able to measurably reduce the commercial sexual violence against poor kids by 79 percent.
Details needed. Social interventions often fail, so it is important to explore what exactly was done right in this specific project.
EDIT: Seems like the strategy is telling the target country “okay, we will show you how to do it our way, plus we will provide resources and oversight”. And if the country agrees, their policemen will receive training and resources (e.g. cars), the government will receive expertise on how to discover corrupt policeman, and the organization will apply some pressure to make sure some of the criminals are punished.
Echoing “details needed” on the method of measuring “commercial sexual violence against poor kids.” Some agencies have reduced reported crimes by reducing reports rather than crimes or otherwise changing the map rather than the territory.
Assuming that question away, related measurement question: do efforts that reduce commercial sexual violence against poor kids generalize well to reducing other crimes, and would we expect these results to replicate and generalize in other communities? Pilot programs (that we hear about; publication bias) are often the best case scenario for program effectiveness, rather than results we can expect elsewhere.
… which is a lot of words to ask how serious we are about the “and possible” in Nancy’s one-sentence summary.
This seems to be about third world poverty. They speaker seems to be from the charity International Justice Mission. It’s on GiveWell’s list as “Considered not contacted”
A claim that local violence (individual crime and enslavement) is now a primary cause of extreme poverty, and it’s crucial and possible to improve police and government enough to make a big difference.
Details needed. Social interventions often fail, so it is important to explore what exactly was done right in this specific project.
EDIT: Seems like the strategy is telling the target country “okay, we will show you how to do it our way, plus we will provide resources and oversight”. And if the country agrees, their policemen will receive training and resources (e.g. cars), the government will receive expertise on how to discover corrupt policeman, and the organization will apply some pressure to make sure some of the criminals are punished.
Echoing “details needed” on the method of measuring “commercial sexual violence against poor kids.” Some agencies have reduced reported crimes by reducing reports rather than crimes or otherwise changing the map rather than the territory.
Assuming that question away, related measurement question: do efforts that reduce commercial sexual violence against poor kids generalize well to reducing other crimes, and would we expect these results to replicate and generalize in other communities? Pilot programs (that we hear about; publication bias) are often the best case scenario for program effectiveness, rather than results we can expect elsewhere.
… which is a lot of words to ask how serious we are about the “and possible” in Nancy’s one-sentence summary.
This seems to be about third world poverty. They speaker seems to be from the charity International Justice Mission. It’s on GiveWell’s list as “Considered not contacted”