A Compassion That Works | Professor Freeman

A Compassion that Works: Why Good Intentions Keep Failing the Poor and What We Can Do About It

By Seth Freeman

A while ago I came to a troubling realization: I had lost track of how many charities and policies I had supported that had done little good or had even backfired. One nonprofit I’d given to, thinking it created jobs for the poor, usually didn’t—and it left some trapped in debt. Another finally reported that during the previous year they had successfully helped exactly one person. The problem wasn’t theirs; it was mine. Things I’d done- and failed to do- had sometimes enabled failure.

As I learned more, I discovered I wasn’t alone; diappointments like these may be more common than we dare admit. Yet it doesn’t have to be that way. I discovered example after example of people who had helped bring about goodness that bordered on the miraculous. One helped trigger a green revolution that staved off global famine and fed over a billion people. Another helped underprivileged kids dramatically improve their reading and math scores. Another helped cut inner city murders by 60% in a matter of months. And beyond the approach of a few people, I found that other approaches I’d ignored helped raise millions out of extreme poverty. When I looked, I discovered hope hiding in plain sight, hope that lies beyond polarization, where our highest values can meet harmoniously with others’.

What is true compassion?

When I looked back at history and my own experience, I began to see three distinct patterns, or ‘phases,’ of compassion. The first is a starting point. The second is in some ways a step forward, but it’s badly flawed. The third may fulfill the hope of the second and answer our question: what can we do to stop failing the poor?

Phase 1 Compassion: Group Loyalty

The first kind of compassion focuses on our own group- our kin, clan, or country. We help our people, and in that loyalty we find the roots of community. Edmund Burke saw it as the soil where wider affections grow. We can call it Phase 1. No society could last without it; yet by itself it warms those within while leaving outsiders in the cold. The question is whether we can go further. And it is when we try to answer that question and face the suffering of those beyond our circle that many of us stumble, just as I have.

Phase 2 Compassion: Mere Good Intentions

Phase 2 is the compassion of good intentions that reaches beyond the tribe. It insists that outsiders—including the poor, the weak, the foreigner, and the marginalized—also deserve our concern. That desire is a genuine moral advance. Yet by definition, Phase 2 cares more about aspirations than results. It measures effort—money spent, goods delivered, people served—instead of outcomes, as if effort alone were proof of impact. Too often it ignores unintended consequences and the voices of those it tries to help. So it risks becoming the counterfeit of care—well-meaning but hollow. It is the trap that I and many others have fallen into. And because its dangers can be harder to see, they deserve exploration.

The Tragedy of Medical Equipment Donations

Consider the tragedy of donated medical equipment. For years, well-meaning campaigns shipped ventilators, oxygen concentrators, imaging machines, and other devices to hospitals in low-income regions, in the hopes of strengthening health systems. Yet many of these machines never made it into use. They lacked spare parts, training, or maintenance, and often couldn’t run on local electricity or climate conditions. Hospitals became littered with ‘equipment graveyards’— machines gathering dust rather than saving lives. Studies find that up to 40 % of donated medical devices sit idle because of lack of technical support or compatibility. Sometimes they even compromised patient safety or burdened local staff with repair costs. This is compassion turned hollow: efforts meant to heal instead become useless heaps or stumbling blocks.

The Surprising Disappointments of Global Development Assistance

The same disappointments often beset development assistance. William Easterly, former World Bank economist, documents how projects designed to alleviate poverty often ended up strengthened dictators while leaving citizens no better off. In Tanzania, donor-backed state farms collapsed within a few years, but because the money passed through the government to elites, it bolstered the ruling party. In Ghana, fertilizer subsidies meant for farmers ended up in the hands of well-connected insiders. Worse still, corrupt leaders at times stole the money. Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire siphoned off billions in aid while his people languished. Despite more than a trillion dollars in assistance between 1960 and 2000, many African nations stagnated, while some poorer, little-aided countries thrived.

The problem wasn’t the intentions but the effects. An Afghan human rights worker once told me over coffee that international programs in her country were a patchwork of disconnected projects that achieved little. A Bangladeshi diplomat told me over lunch that foreign officials had insisted on giving schools desks instead of iPads, fearing locals would steal them. The desks piled up unused in back rooms.

The Surprising Results of American Charities

Closer to home, Robert Lupton reports similar problems. In Charity Detox he describes how nonprofits often please donors more than serve neighbors. In Atlanta, toy drives humiliated parents, food pantries undercut stores, and tutoring programs fizzled when volunteers failed to commit. As Lupton puts it, much modern charity resembles “medicine in the age of leeches”—earnest but primitive.

The “Iron Law” of Government Programs

The same sobering story is often true of well-meaning government efforts. Peter H. Rossi, a leading evaluation scholar, identified the Iron Law of Evaluation: large social programs tend to show little or no net impact in rigorous tests. His Stainless Steel Law added that the better the evaluation, the more likely the Iron Law proves true. Job-training programs showed at best modest gains; resource-heavy school reforms often disappointed. Rossi probably intentionally overstated the case—after all, several efforts like the Marshall Plan, the GI Bill, and some safety net programs did great good—but his warning stands.

An African American tour guide in Harlem once told me gently that welfare programs had caused many in his community to grow more dependent while strivers left—one of the many unintended consequences of well-meaning policies.

My Own Experience

My record of giving and voting has similar fails. While I did confirm that charities I liked managed their finances responsibly, I had little idea whether they achieved real results. I knew little more about policies I backed. Would I buy a house or a car the way I gave or voted? Hardly. My compassion had mostly been fruitless, and sometimes enabled failure.

The Trap of Codependency

Phase 2’s problem is not only that it’s often ineffective; it also often creates codependency. A spouse who enables an alcoholic partner shields him from consequences. She looks kind, but she thwarts his recovery. Likewise, donors can become hooked on the feeling of doing good while communities can become dependent on handouts. Not all giving breeds dependency, but the risk is real and calls for thoughtfulness.

In short, Phase 2 fails not because it cares, but because it refuses to learn. It settles for good intentions and inspiring photos, ignoring evidence and unintended harm. That refusal leaves the poor burdened with our mistakes, and leaves us no wiser. Its compassion is earnest, but undisciplined. The danger pushes us to look for something better. But what?

Phase 3 Compassion: Bold Humility

Phase 3 begins with a simple thought: ‘I care enough to learn.’ It preserves Phases 1 and 2’s genuine concern while correcting their blind spots. Where Phase 1 is bound to its own and Phase 2 extends compassion thoughtlessly, Phase 3 listens before acting, questions before prescribing, and measures results carefully. Its motto is ‘humility before help.’ Not instead of help, but before it—so its actions are actually effective. Phase 3 admits failure and learns. It dares to ask questions out of curiosity and concern, practicing what we might call Bold Humility.

Phase 3 is not ideological, partisan, or technocratic. It welcomes practical wisdom wherever it is found. Its test is not good intentions but good impact. Yet it resists reducing compassion to spreadsheets or cost–benefit charts alone, because part of Bold Humility requires asking questions about what is just and merciful, not just measurable. And because we all have preconceptions, Phase 3 often reveals surprises.

Freedom. One surprising source of compassion is economic and political liberty, because it empowers the suffering. South Korea, Botswana, and Poland, once poor, thrived by embracing free trade, free markets, the rule of law, property rights, and, in time, democracy, lifting millions out of poverty. And because liberty and innovation usually go together, they can do wonders: by one measure—the hours of work needed to afford everyday goods—most people today are many times wealthier than even the rich were 200 years ago.

Government and Nonprofits. Yet liberty alone isn’t enough; many can and do suffer in free societies. In 1900, for example, the average American lived only about 45 years. Freedom mattered, but without antitrust laws, nonprofits, regulations, sanitation, and vaccines, life remained harsh and short. So government and charities should act to protect the vulnerable.

Social Security, for example, has lifted millions of seniors out of poverty. Studies of Harlem Children’s Zone charter schools have found they closed the racial achievement gap in math and significantly narrowed it in English. The smallpox campaign by governments, nonprofits, and international partners eliminated a devastating disease. Publicly supported research that created the Green Revolution, the internet, and more has transformed life for billions of poor people. Phase 3 welcomes efforts like these because they produce measurable good.

The People Themselves. Yet some of the most effective innovations come from poor communities. In Kenya, for example, people turned a cell phone service called M-Pesa into a mobile bank; the idea spread to tens of millions, helping lift hundreds of thousands of families out of extreme poverty. Separately, Elinor Ostrom showed that local communities can sustainably manage commons—fisheries, forests, irrigation—with locally tailored rules. Phase 3 honors ingenuity like that and nurtures it, working with, not over, the people it serves.

Power and Prudence. Sometimes compassion means restraining those who cause harm. The abolitionist and civil-rights movements and the fight against Hitler are just three examples. As Martin Luther King put it, “Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic.” Phase 3 accepts that power may be necessary—non-violent wherever possible, coercive only as a last resort—and insists it be used with humility, reasonableness, and accountability. Without those disciplines, ‘compassion’ and ‘justice’ slide into vengeance.

The Non-Material Dimension. But compassion isn’t only material; meaning, values, faith, and relationships matter too, often at least as much. Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, works not by giving goods but by but by giving spiritual help in a loving community. Many faith communities offer hope, accountability, and belonging that transform countless lives in ways money alone never could. Cultural norms matter too; following the ‘success sequence’—finishing high school, working before having children, and marrying before raising a family—is strongly correlated with lower poverty. Correlation isn’t causation, but the pattern is striking. Phase 3 respects the non-material dimension and seeks ways it can support it without smothering it.

Boundaries. Sometimes compassion requires saying no. As many well-meaning programs demonstrate, unlimited aid can create dependency; in contrast, some time-limited help can foster independence. Phase 3 resists the dependency trap: it combines discipline with humility and insists compassion respect both agency and moral guardrails.

In short, there are many ways to deploy Phase 3. That’s good news, because it means we have more than one way to win. People of good will can disagree, and that debate can be vital. The danger comes when we decide ours is the only way and demonize dissent. That reaction slides us back into the worst forms of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Compassion.

Dialogue Across Differences

So, Phase 3 Compassion thrives on dialogue—a compass that reveals truths we’d otherwise miss. Dialogue isn’t about politeness or splitting the difference; it’s about testing ideas in conversation with those who see things differently, uncovering insights neither side could reach alone.

Consider the debate over the minimum wage. Advocates argue it gives workers dignity and reduces poverty. Opponents warn it reduces inexperienced workers’ job opportunities. Both have evidence. Dialogue doesn’t erase the conflict, but it can reveal creative solutions—like pairing modest wage floors with temporary wage subsidies or tax credits—that address each side’s concerns.

John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” Dialogue helps us know when we are right, when we are wrong, and when we just hold part of the puzzle. It isn’t an obstacle to compassion but a path toward wiser service. Thus the motto: “Everyone is my teacher.”

Urgency and Wisdom

But what about urgent need? When we see widespread suffering—poverty, disaster, illness—action can be both morally imperative and profoundly dangerous, demanding discernment. History shows the risks: in the 1960s, Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb needlessly spurred draconian population controls that harmed millions; meanwhile, the Green Revolution averted famine through careful, evidence-driven innovation. After Haiti’s 2010 quake, billions in aid were delayed, diverted, and largely squandered, creating dependence without protecting against future disasters. In contrast, Bangladesh’s 1998 flood recovery combined foreign aid with shelters, warning systems, and local volunteer programs, saving millions in later storms.

The lesson is not to ignore urgency but to act wisely. Some crises, like a bleeding person by the roadside, demand immediate action. Many others require triage, coordination, evidence-based interventions, and preventive work. That means going big if it likely will better many people’s lives without backfiring, and, regardless acting humbly, and using local knowledge and incentives so any action truly works. Phase 3 Compassion calls this principle “triage, fire, ready, aim, fire”—respond to truly urgent need quickly but devote more energy to learning, thinking, and scaling proven solutions, embodying the idea: ‘go slow to go fast.’

Practicing Phase 3 Compassion

How then do we live out Phase 3 Compassion?

As citizens, we can insist that charities and policies show independent evidence they’ll probably help. We can refuse to settle merely for earnest pleas, impassioned slogans, or touching stories. We can ask: What works? What do surveys of the people being served say? If the answers are weak, we can take our support elsewhere. We can walk alongside those we aim to serve—listening, volunteering—without assuming we know best. And we can watch for, honor and support things that help without our help.

In business, we can build ventures that create jobs and skills, not dependency, and help other proven efforts that that equip the poor to thrive on their own.

In public policy, we can study not only celebrated successes but also quiet failures. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy’s cost-benefit webpage, for example, helps policymakers see which ideas actually improve lives and which don’t. And when headlines tell us something terrible demands action, we can ask ‘dumb’ questions, check statistics, and listen to different perspectives to test the claim.

In responding to conflict, we can practice collaborative negotiation and dialogue across differences to reveal solutions neither side can see alone, and collaborate wisely when we take action- improving the odds our help actually will help.

Phase 3 Compassion as a Bridge in a Polarized Age

Compassion has become a battlefield: many insist they are all about care and inclusion, many others that what matters is sense and responsibility, as if we can walk toward hope on one leg without the other. One side worries the other cares only for the marginalized; the other worries the first side cares only for their own. A chasm opens between them. Meanwhile, teens like Jamaal and Yolanda in South Chicago wait for good schools, safe neighborhoods, and the deeper anchors of belonging and purpose.

Phase 3 Compassion can be a bridge. It asks no one to abandon their highest values, it only seeks to fulfill them. It seeks to wisely serve family, community, country and beyond, extending itself to the marginalized, both inside and outside those circles.

We saw its promise in Boston, where David Kennedy led a collaboration of police, social workers, and neighbors that gave gang members a severe warning and much-needed help, an approach that cut youth homicides by about half. We saw it too in Houston, where Roland Fryer’s evidence-based reforms gave underprivileged middle-schoolers the equivalent of roughly an extra year of math learning. These stories show we can serve the left’s desire for care and the right’s desire for sense. Each story illustrates the compassion that transforms lives.

Practiced well, Phase 3 Compassion joins empathy with discipline, hope with accountability, and helps the vulnerable and the strong rise together—within one’s group and beyond it.

Which Compassion Would We Want?

Compassion is too important to be left to instinct or sentiment. Phase 1 narrows it to one’s own, Phase 2 squanders it in mere good intentions, but Phase 3 reclaims it by approaching every act of service with Bold Humility—caring enough to learn, coupling generosity with curiosity, care with discernment. It says: first do no harm; then do good that likely helps and forebear when wisdom calls for it, focusing on others’ true needs. Instead of partisanship, technocracy, or ideology, it welcomes the best ideas wherever they are.

Practiced well, Phase 3 Compassion does more than relieve suffering—it fosters independence, dignity, and flourishing. It walks with the poor and the suffering, not over them. It restrains injustice when necessary, restrains itself when that serves best, and nurtures agency whenever it can.

Imagine we are poor or suffering. Which kind of compassion would we want to receive?

Endnotes

Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (Hatherleigh Press, 2002), 105.
Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), xi, 11.
Reuters, “U.S. Suspends Duty-Free Status for Rwanda over Clothing Import Dispute,” July 30, 2018.
Reuters, “Uganda Bans Import of Used Clothes, Citing Health, Dignity Concerns,” Sept. 6, 2023.
William Easterly, The Elusive Quest for Growth (MIT Press, 2001).
Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank, “Lessons from the Narmada Dam Project,” 1993; Sanjeev Khagram, Dams and Development (Cornell University Press, 2004).
Los Angeles Times, “Mobutu, Zaire’s Ex-Ruler, Dies in Exile,” Sept. 8, 1997; Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2004; SwissInfo, “Switzerland Returns Mobutu Millions to Congo,” May 12, 2007.
Robert Lupton, Charity Detox: What Charity Would Look Like if We Cared About the Results (HarperOne, 2015).
Peter H. Rossi, Evaluating Social Programs: Theory, Practice, and Politics (Prentice-Hall, 1978); Rossi, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th ed. (Sage, 2003).
MDRC, “Summary of Workforce Development Programs,” evaluations from the 1970s–1990s.
Will Dobbie & Roland Fryer, “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? Evidence from a Social Experiment in Harlem,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, no. 4 (2011): 1591–1675.
World Bank, “The Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing?” Agriculture & Rural Development Notes,
Tavneet Suri & William Jack, “The Long-Run Poverty and Gender Impacts of Mobile Money,” Science 354, no. 6317 (2016): 1288–1292.
Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
Reinhold Niebuhr, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932), ch. 7.
Martin Luther King Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (Beacon Press, 1967), 37.
South Korea’s postwar growth began under authoritarian governments that embraced trade, education, and export-led industrialization in the 1960s–70s. Democratic reforms followed in 1987, leading to one of Asia’s strongest democracies today (Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2024). Botswana, by contrast, has been a multiparty democracy since independence in 1966 and is often cited as one of Africa’s most stable democracies, combining prudent diamond management with accountable institutions (Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, An African Success Story: Botswana, 2003).
Ron Haskins & Isabel Sawhill, “The Success Sequence: Three Simple Rules That Lead to Less Poverty,” Brookings Institution, 2016.
Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Ballantine, 1968).
Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Harvard University Press, 2008).
Jonathan Katz, The Big Truck That Went By (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
UN Logistics Cluster, “Haiti Earthquake Lessons Learned,” 2011.
UN OCHA, Financial Tracking Service: Haiti Earthquake 2010 Consolidated Appeal.
S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Haiti Reconstruction: U.S. Efforts Have Faced Challenges (GAO-13-558), June 2013.
IFRC/ReliefWeb, “Haiti: Floods—Situation Report,” Sept. 2004.
ReliefWeb/AFP, “Haiti Hurricanes Leave Hundreds Dead,” Sept. 2008.
Eric Calais et al., “Transpressional Ruptures and Earthquake Hazard on the Enriquillo Fault System, Haiti,” Geophysical Journal International 178, no. 2 (2009): 741–753.
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), EM-DAT dataset, Bangladesh cyclones 1970–2020.
S. Geological Hazards Program, “Cyclone Sidr: Impact Report,” 2007.
CARE International, “Cyclone Amphan: Bangladesh Situation Report,” 2020; IFRC, “Bangladesh: Cyclone Amphan Operations Update,” July 2020; ReliefWeb, “Cyclone Amphan: Lessons from Bangladesh,” 2021.
Sachs, J. The End of Poverty (2005); The Global Fund Results Reports.
Easterly, W. The White Man’s Burden (2006).
Moyo, D. Dead Aid (2009).
Sen, A. Development as Freedom (1999).
Doucouliagos, H. & Paldam, M. “The Aid Effectiveness Literature: The Sad Results of 40 Years of Research,” Journal of Economic Surveys (2009).
World Bank, “Country Policy and Institutional Assessment” (CPIA) methodology; Banerjee, A. & Duflo, E. Poor Economics (2011).
De Waal, A. Evil Days: Thirty Years of War and Famine in Ethiopia (1991).
Minear, L. & Weiss, T. Mercy Under Fire: War and the Global Humanitarian Community (1995) – on Operation Lifeline Sudan.
Katz, J. The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster (2013).
Hossain, N. & Moore, M. “Elite Perceptions of Poverty in Bangladesh,” IDS Bulletin (2002).
David Kennedy et al., “Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project’s Operation Ceasefire,” NIJ Research Report, 1998.
Roland Fryer, “Financial Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from Randomized Trials,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, no. 4 (2011): 1755–1798.
Norman Borlaug, Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, 1970; Charles C. Mann, The Wizard and the Prophet (Knopf, 2018).
Jane Addams, Twenty Years at Hull-House (1910); Allen F. Davis, American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams (Oxford University Press, 1973).
The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations (by Dietrich Dörner, 1989/1996 in English).
Tracy Kidder, Mountains Beyond Mountains (Random House, 2003); Paul Farmer et al., “Community-Based Approaches to HIV Treatment in Resource-Poor Settings,” Lancet 360, no. 9328 (2002): 404–409.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9015930/?utm_source=chatgpt.com