# data[].attributes.body
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), previously the William H. Gates Foundation, is an American private foundation founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. Based in Seattle, Washington, it was launched in 2000 and is reported to be the largest private foundation in the world, holding $46.8 billion in assets. The primary goals of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and, in the U.S., to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

# data[].attributes.headline
Population Focus and Overall Program Initiatives

# data[].attributes.subject
Population Focus and Overall Program Initiatives

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Gates - Charity. Bill and Melinda Gates started the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which helps people and organizations all over the world. The Foundation helps to end poverty and disease around the world and fix the education system in America.

# data[].attributes.body
Mission Statement

# data[].attributes.body
To maintain its status as a charitable foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation must donate funds equal to at least 5 percent of its assets each year. As of April 2014, the foundation is organized into four program areas under chief executive officer Susan Desmond-Hellmann, who "sets strategic priorities, monitors results, and facilitates relationships with key partners":
• Global Development Division

# data[].attributes.body
Goals and Objectives: Click to view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
our goal:

a world free of malaria.

The Challenge

At A Glance

Malaria exacts a massive toll on human health and imposes a heavy social and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. An estimated 219 million people suffered from the disease in 2017 and about 435,000 died. More than 90 percent of the deaths were in Africa, and over 60 percent were among children under 5.

Malaria is caused by parasites transmitted by mosquitoes. Even in relatively mild cases, it can cause high fever, chills, flu-like symptoms, and severe anemia. These symptoms can be especially dangerous for pregnant women and young children who are experiencing the disease for the first time. Severe malaria can cause lifelong intellectual disabilities in children, and malaria's economic impact is estimated to cost billions of dollars in lost productivity every year.

Since 2000, deaths from malaria have been reduced by half. A combination of interventions and a rise in funding helped drive this progress, including the timely use of reliable diagnostic tests and effective drugs; indoor spraying with safe, long-lasting insecticides; and the use of bed nets treated with long-lasting insecticide to protect people from mosquito bites at night.

In recent years malaria cases in many high-burden countries have increased. Overall funding for malaria control has plateaued. The malaria parasite has also begun to develop resistance to currently available drugs, and insecticide resistance is becoming a challenge in key Anopheline species. These headwinds require new commitment and new approaches to malaria control.

Given sufficient global commitment, scaling up proven strategies using data, and continued investments in research and development to innovate transformative new tools and delivery strategies, the ambitious goal of malaria eradication can be met. Along the way, we can save millions more lives by addressing the high-burden countries, in partnership with affected countries, donors and technical partners.

Malaria is preventable and treatable, and history shows that it can be eliminated. Less than a century ago, it was prevalent across the world, including in Europe and North America. Malaria was eliminated in most of Western Europe by the mid-1930s; the United States achieved elimination of the disease in 1951.

We can drive down burden in the short- to medium-term, resulting in fewer deaths on the path to eradication. This involves improving the delivery of existing interventions, using improved data systems to optimize where we use those interventions, developing new tools and strategies, and supporting the leadership of malaria affected countries.

Malaria is a top priority of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Our malaria strategy, updated in 2018, addresses the areas in which we believe the foundation is best positioned, among a broad spectrum of partners, to be catalytic in reducing the burden of malaria and accelerating progress toward eradication of the disease. We intend to pursue a Pathway to Eradication that minimizes deaths due to malaria between now and the end of malaria.

The update of the malaria strategy can be summarized in a series of pivots that will drive our investments and work. In summary, they are:

Increasingly, work in high burden countries to rapidly reduce deaths through improved data-driven decisions and to build systems that will shorten the endgame. This is wholly aligned with the High Burden to High Impact initiative launched in November 2018 with the leadership of WHO and the RBM Partnership to End Malaria

Deepen our partnerships and collaboration with PMI, Global Fund, DfID, other leading donors and WHO to produce more coordinated support in service of affected country governments

Establish platforms to support next-generation surveillance and data use, with an emphasis on scaling genetic epidemiology to inform decision-making at every level and to determine how to get more out of tools and limited resources

Optimize coverage of chemoprevention through existing channels to save lives now using existing, proven tools

Test models that can scale access to - and quality of - care and medicines across public and private sector channels

Accelerate the number and pace of R&D for transformational endgame tools, acknowledging that what we have today won't get us to eradication

We concentrate our resources in areas where our efforts can make an impact and save lives, and we assume risks that are more challenging for others to take.

We recognize that we are just one small part of a broader, global fight. That's why we work closely with partners to maximize the impact of our aggregate efforts. To date, we have committed more than US$2.9 billion in grants to combat malaria. In addition, we have committed US$2 billion to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We also advocate for sustained and increased funding of malaria-related efforts by donor governments and affected countries.

Areas of Focus

Three strategy goals define our pathway to eradication:

In the short- and medium-term, scale surveillance and data-driven sub-national optimization, chemoprevention and case management in high-burden settings to reduce deaths and cases. Many of the tools needed to fight malaria - from vector-control tools, to diagnostics and drugs - already exist, yet cases continue to rise in many high-burden countries. We are working closely with partners to ensure life-saving tools are made available to the people who need them most, where they are most effective. Alongside strong partnerships and government commitments, finding ways to do more with the tools we already have can save lives and bring us closer to ending malaria.

Create an enabling environment for winning the endgame in high-endemic Sub-Saharan Africa by investing in next-generation surveillance systems, elimination in regions where drug-resistant malaria has emerged, and accelerating endgame research and development efforts today. Elimination is facilitated by having sufficient prevention of transmission and access to care, guided by timely and accurate surveillance data. These are also approaches that will help drive down burden in the short term, creating a strategic link between the first two goals.

New and enhanced surveillance tools will be critical to moving from very low transmission to zero transmission and sustaining zero transmission, especially in remote areas and areas of conflict. In testing and implementing new surveillance tools and methods, we are learning from other eradication programs, such as those for smallpox and polio. We are also exploring new ways to measure progress and document when elimination has been achieved.

Mitigate the emergence of drug and insecticide resistance by eliminating falciparum malaria in the Greater Mekong Subregion, developing a robust pipeline of active ingredients and analyzing entomological and genetic epidemiological data to quickly respond to threats.

Ultimately, ending malaria will require transformative innovations. And the current challenges of rising drug and insecticide resistance threatens the efficacy of existing tools. That's why we are investing in the development of new tools and strategies to help finish the fight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
a world free of malaria. The Challenge At A Glance Malaria exacts a massive toll on human health and imposes a heavy social and economic burden in low- and middle-income countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. An estimated 219 million people suffered from the disease in 2017 and about 435,000 died.

# data[].attributes.body
Letter from Bill and Melinda Gates on Program Initiatives: Click to view

# data[].attributes.body
Guided by the belief that every life has equal value, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation works to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people's health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, it seeks to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. Based in Seattle, Washington, the foundation is led by CEO Mark Suzman and Co-chair William H. Gates Sr., under the direction of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett.

# data[].attributes.body
Funding:Click on each program to view

Global Development Program

Global Growth & Opportunity Program

Global Health Program

Global Policy & Advocacy

United States Program

We also have a small Charitable Sector Support initiative.

# data[].attributes.body
Partnerships

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Diversity.com: a Leader in Diversity Job Recruiting

Diversity.com has been a leader in the diversity jobs market since 2000. We feature job postings from some of the best diversity employers across a wide variety of industries such as manufacturing, education, non-profit, finance, healthcare, technology, and marketing from customer service jobs all the way up to high level executive positions. Because minority recruiting is such a niche market, we offer closer proximity to qualified candidates unlike "big pond" sites. An inclusive workplace is more important now than ever. Companies who show their commitment to embracing diversity will attract more highly qualified candidates than companies who do not. Maintaining a diversity hired workforce will also show that your organization has a high standard for ethics, which is crucial to your business' reputation outside of the company and within. Workplace diversity refers to a place of business that employs men and women from multiple races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, gender identities, age groups, and religious affiliations.

Diversity.com is a 100% African American

family owned small business headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. We strive to provide a space for diversity employers to find the best candidates for any job position, with a particular focus on attracting talent in the science, technology, education, and medical fields. If you are a diversity employer looking for highly qualified candidates for your workforce, post your job listings with Diversity.com, today. If you are a talented individual looking for an inclusive workplace, submit your resume today and find work with some of the best diversity employers.

In a new article from Yahoo Finance, the teacher shortage maybe more bleak that we thought. With low pay and long hours, are we showing our teachers love? We ask them to support their students with school supplies, food and sometimes clothing. Are we showing our teachers love? And because we have not been showing our teachers love, they are striking. There have been major strikes in more than 6 states, where they are asking us for help. They are not feeling our love.

" Read More "

It has been reported a job posting appeared boldly requesting a, " Preferably Caucasian" candidate. The preferably caucasian candidate also needed to possess "good technical background".
Cynet Systems Inc
The culprit responsible for publicly proclaiming this obvious violation of equal employment recruiting is Cynet Systems Inc. Cynet Systems, Inc, a tech company specializing in staffing ... " Read More "

Job Description

The process of writing a job description requires having a clear understanding of the job's duties and responsibilities. The job posting should also include a conc ... " Read More "

The process of writing job posting

The process of writing a job description requires having a clear understanding of the job's duties and responsibilities. The job posting should also include a concise picture of the skills required for the position to attract qualified job candidates. Organize the job description into five sections: company information, job description, job requirements ( skills) ,benefits and a call to action. Be sure to include additional keywords that will ... " Read More "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Diversity.com has been a leader in the diversity jobs market since 2000. We feature job postings from some of the best diversity employers across a wide variety of industries such as manufacturing, education, non-profit, finance, healthcare, technology, and marketing from customer service jobs all the way up to high level executive positions.

# data[].attributes.body
Program Initiatives: Click to view

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Our Global Health Program advisory committee comprises a group of esteemed experts from outside of the foundation who offer a wide range of experiences and perspectives. This group plays an important role in strengthening our work by offering independent assessments of our strategies and helping us evaluate results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our Global Health Program advisory committee comprises a group of esteemed experts from outside of the foundation who offer a wide range of experiences and perspectives. This group plays an important role in strengthening our work by offering independent assessments of our strategies and helping us evaluate results.

# data[].attributes.body
Bill Gates, Co-chair and Trustee

Melinda Gates, Co-chair and Trustee

Warren Buffett, Trustee

William H. Gates Sr., Co-chair

Mark Suzman, Chief Executive Officer

Chris Elias, President, Global Development

Rodger Voorhies, President, Global Growth & Opportunity

Trevor Mundel, President, Global Health

Allan C. Golston, President, United States Program

Connie Collingsworth, Chief Business Operations Officer, Operations

Carolyn Ainslie, Chief Financial Officer, Operations

Global Development Division Leadership

Global Growth & Opportunity Division Leadership

Global Health Division Leadership

Global Policy & Advocacy Division Leadership

United States Program Leadership

Operations Division Leadership

Office of the CEO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill Gates has helpfully provided President Donald Trump with a three-step plan on what he needs to do to halt the coronavirus pandemic-and has told him that he really needs to stop spreading rumors about a miracle cure. The Microsoft founder, who urged leaders to prepare for a pandemic back in 2015, laid out his advice in The Washington Post. He said the U.S. needs a complete shutdown in all states, must step up testing, and has to start work now to speed up the development of a vaccine. Gates said that includes immediately beginning work to build the facilities where a vaccine would be manufactured. He also criticized Trump for spreading rumors about malaria medication that the president has repeatedly name-checked as a coronavirus treatment. Gates wrote: "Leaders can help by not stoking rumors or panic buying. Long before the drug hydroxychloroquine was approved as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, people started hoarding it, making it hard to find for lupus patients who need it to survive."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gates Tells Trump: Stop Stoking Coronavirus Miracle Cure Rumors

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bill Gates has helpfully provided President Donald Trump with a three-step plan on what he needs to do to halt the coronavirus pandemic-and has told him that he really needs to stop spreading rumors about a miracle cure. The Microsoft founder, who urged leaders to prepare for a pandemic back in 2015, laid out his advice in The Washington Post.

# data[].attributes.headline
Watch this video and in DB please comment on whether you agree with Bill Gates on what needs to be done?

# data[].attributes.subject
Watch this video and in DB please comment on whether you agree with Bill Gates on what needs to be done?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The next outbreak? We’re not ready | Bill Gates | TED

# data[].attributes.body
Corona virus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bill Gates makes a prediction about when coronavirus cases will peak

# data[].attributes.body
Diversity: A world of change. (2020).  www.diversity.com/index.php

Gates, B. (Apr 3, 2015).  The next outbreak?  We're not ready.  You tube.  youtube.com/watch?v=6Af6b_wyiwl.

Gates, B. & M., (2019).  What we do, malaria strategy overview.  www.gatesfoundation.org/what-we-do/global-health/malaria

Gates, B. (2020).  Gatesnotes.  Annual letter.  youtube.com/watch?v=aL-Xteout NU

Gates, B. & M., (2019).  www.gatesfoundation.org

Ross, J. (Apr 2, 2020). Bill Gates tells Trump: Stop stoking coronavirus miracle cure rumors. dailybeast.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation collaborates with partners to promote long-term solutions that help people live healthy, productive lives. Achieving our ambitious goals requires rigorous evaluation so we and our partners can continually improve how we carry out our work.

Evaluation is the systematic, objective assessment of an ongoing or completed intervention, project, policy, program, or partnership. Evaluation is best used to answer questions about what actions work best to achieve outcomes, how and why they are or are not achieved, what the unintended consequences have been, and what needs to be adjusted to improve execution. When done well, evaluation is a powerful tool to inform foundation and partner decision making about how to optimize scarce resources for maximum impact. It is distinct from other forms of measurement that focus only on observing whether change has occurred, not why or how that change occurred.

Our current practice in evaluation is characterized by variation, and in the absence of a policy, decision making is left to individual program teams and program officers. Because the foundation supports a diverse range of partners and projects, it is necessary to have a clear organizational understanding of how evaluation should vary to best inform decision-making across each of these areas.

Our evaluation policy is intended to help foundation staff and our partners align their expectations in determining why, when, and how to use evaluation. More specifically, the policy encourages foundation teams to be more transparent, strategic, and systematic in deciding what and how to evaluate. Our aim is to integrate evaluation into the fabric of our work, achieve early alignment with our partners about what we are evaluating and why, and generate evidence that is useful to us and our partners as we move forward.
Organizational Context
Our evaluation policy is rooted in our business model, which involves working with partners to achieve the greatest impact. Early in the grant proposal process, we work with prospective partners to define and agree on measurable outcomes and indicators of progress and success. This enables our partners to learn as they carry out their work rather than be distracted by requirements to measure and report at every step along the way.

This approach reinforces the role of evaluation in testing innovation, making improvements, and understanding what works and why to learn quickly from failure and replicate success.

The policy is also rooted in the foundation's core values: collaboration, rigor, innovation, and optimism. More specifically:

We consider evaluation to be a collaborative learning tool that provides us and our partners with feedback so we can learn, adjust, and decide how best to achieve outcomes.

We apply rigor to our decision making on when and how to use evaluation and the types of evaluation to implement.

We believe that evaluation is crucial to learning from innovative projects and pilot programs before they are implemented on a larger scale.

We are optimistic that evaluation can spread benefits across many disciplines as we share useful evidence with partners and others.

Evaluation is a contested discipline. We are aware of the ongoing and healthy debate about what types of evidence are appropriate to inform policy and practice in U.S. education and in international public health and development. However, the diversity of our partners and areas of focus precludes us from promoting only certain types of evaluation evidence as acceptable for decision making.

We avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to evaluation because we want our evaluation efforts to be designed for a specific purpose and for specific intended users. This approach to evaluation design, which we call fit to purpose, has three elements:

It allows for a range of methods, including qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, retrospective and prospective designs, experimentation, theory-based evaluation, and systems-based approaches.

It requires our teams, outside evaluators, and partners to be rigorous about the inferences they make and explicit about the assumptions they use to draw conclusions.

It requires our teams and our partners to consider evaluation evidence in the context of action so the evaluation efforts produce findings that can be acted on rather than information that is merely nice to know.

The following three designs represent the vast majority of the evaluations we support.
Evaluations to understand and strengthen program effectiveness
Evaluations that help our partners strengthen the execution of projects are among the most relevant for the foundation because they provide feedback about what is and isn't working within a specific location or across locations.

We use this type of evaluation in the following scenarios:

When one or more partners are delivering a combination of interventions to achieve aggregate outcomes (e.g., increased and consistent use of latrines, better student achievement, exclusive breastfeeding in the first 6 months, use of a particular crop variety, or use of mobile phone-based financial services by women) in a specific location.

When one or more partners are delivering the same approach, product, or solution in different locations.

When we collaborate with a partner to promote effective resource allocation, planning, and delivery of services in a specific location or sector.

Such evaluations should be designed with the following considerations in mind:

They are not expected to assess causal relationships between the interventions and the desired outcomes.

They should have a very specific purpose and use. Because evaluations can quickly become comprehensive as well as expensive, the findings must closely match the partner's decision-making needs.

We support the use of technological innovations in data collection and analysis to increase the timeliness and accessibility of data.

Both quantitative and qualitative data are relevant in evaluating processes, operations, cost effectiveness, key stakeholders' perceptions, and enabling contextual factors.

Evaluations may include impact estimates if those are needed to inform important decisions-about scaling up an initiative, for example, or about the level of penetration needed to ensure a certain level of impact. Impact estimates should not be used as proof of macro-level impact, however.

Because the assumptions used to construct impact estimates can lead to large error margins, a robust baseline of key coverage indicators is essential, along with data on how these indicators have changed over time. Population-level impact can then usually be determined through modeling or use of secondary data.

In select cases, it may be necessary to determine a causal relationship between the change in coverage and the desired population-level impact. If so, the design should include a plausible counterfactual, usually obtained through modeling or comparison with national or sub-national trends.
Evaluations to test the causal effects of pilot projects, innovations, or delivery models
Evaluations that produce causal evidence can be used to decide whether to scale up or replicate pilots, innovations, or delivery models. They can also provide essential knowledge to the foundation, our partners, policymakers, and practitioners.

We use this type of evaluation in the following scenarios:

When foundation teams and partners need evidence to determine which solutions within large programs are the most effective and cost-effective.

When foundation teams and partners invest in pilot projects and innovations and need evidence to persuade others to scale up to larger geographies or replicate in other contexts.

When we and our partners need evidence to make trade-offs between different implementation tactics, delivery approaches, and program components.

When we and our partners need to assess the effectiveness of advocacy, social marketing, and awareness-raising tactics before deciding on an overall strategy to influence perceptions and behaviors.

Evaluations of causal relationships should be designed with the following considerations in mind:

They should be able to clearly demonstrate that the positive or negative effects observed were caused by the intervention or tactic. They should also measure the size of the effect caused by that intervention or tactic.

They must be able to rule out the effects of factors other than the specific intervention, by including a plausible counterfactual. We suggest using experimental or certain quasi-experimental designs in this context. If it is impractical or implausible to create a counterfactual (e.g., when a national institution provides technical support to a government partner), we suggest using the evaluation design described next.

They are more useful when we test variations rather than a single line of inquiry (e.g., does x work or not?).

They should examine the equally important questions of how and why the changes were caused by the intervention, by looking at processes, performance, and costs.

Evaluations of causal relationships should not be used when existing proxies of effectiveness and outcomes are sufficient. They are also not appropriate for evaluating whole packages of interventions with multiple cause-and-effect pathways.
Evaluations to improve the performance of institutions or operating models
Evaluations that provide a neutral assessment of the effectiveness of an organization or operating model can inform foundation and partner decision making about how best to use financial or technical resources, resolve challenges, and support ongoing progress.

We use this type of evaluation selectively, in the following scenarios:

When we work with a partner organization that is essential to the success of a foundation strategy.

When our relationship with the partner is at a critical juncture where additional, detailed information on a specific area of operation can inform next steps, strengthen collaboration, and depersonalize decision making.

When we develop new ways of working (e.g., by establishing a deeper presence in a specific country) and an objective, systematic assessment can inform decisions about implementation and strengthen relationships with key stakeholders.

Evaluations of institutional effectiveness and operating models should be designed with the following considerations:

Such evaluations can easily become too comprehensive and burdensome to foundation staff or partners, so rigorous selection of evaluation questions and a clear purpose are essential.

Whenever possible, these evaluations should be done in close collaboration with other donors so we can gain efficiencies, achieve a common understanding of the support that key partners need to succeed, and continue learning from our joint experience.

Such evaluations are largely qualitative and should not seek to assess the causal relationship between a partner organization or operating model and program outcomes.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation made a clear commitment to actionable measurement as a guiding philosophy in 2008. The philosophy spells out a clear need for purpose-driven evaluation rather than adherence to any one particular method or design. Where relevant and matched to the type of work we do, evaluation can help depersonalize decision making and provide objective data that can inform action.

This policy document outlines the foundation's position on why, when, and how we use evaluation to create useful evidence for decision makers, improve program execution, inform our evidence-based advocacy, and develop stronger relationships with our grantees and partners. We view it as the starting point of a larger effort to make high-quality evaluation an integral part of how we operate and carry out our work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation collaborates with partners to promote long-term solutions that help people live healthy, productive lives. Achieving our ambitious goals requires rigorous evaluation so we and our partners can continually improve how we carry out our work. Evaluation is the systematic, objective assessment of an ongoing or completed intervention, project, policy, program, or partnership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why we swing for the fences | Our 2020 annual letter