Thanks for writing this, Neal. This is an interesting way of aggregating the existing capacity of locally led organizations to scale evidence-based interventions. I particularly like the emphasis on interventions that have been validated and proven to be cost-effective.
What I am curious about is how aggregation models like Connect might evolve for cause areas where achieving impact depends less on direct service delivery and more on strengthening systems and government capacity. For example, reducing lead exposure at its source has been noted to require stronger regulatory enforcement and government leadership alongside community-level interventions. My guess is that a meaningful share of this next wave of philanthropy may be directed toward these types of challenges.
Thanks for writing this, Neal. This is an interesting way of aggregating the existing capacity of locally led organizations to scale evidence-based interventions. I particularly like the emphasis on interventions that have been validated and proven to be cost-effective.
What I am curious about is how aggregation models like Connect might evolve for cause areas where achieving impact depends less on direct service delivery and more on strengthening systems and government capacity. For example, reducing lead exposure at its source has been noted to require stronger regulatory enforcement and government leadership alongside community-level interventions. My guess is that a meaningful share of this next wave of philanthropy may be directed toward these types of challenges.