report from the field:

International Philanthropy

International philanthropy has traditionally accounted for only 2-3% of charitable giving in the United States, but with increased globalization, communication and cooperation among peoples, there is more interest and opportunity today than ever before. There are two main channels: giving directly to foreignbased organizations, and giving to US-based international programs. These have recently been impacted by several developments: the post 9-11 world of more stringent regulations around direct, cross-border giving; the emergence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as by far the largest US international grantmaking foundation; the innovative and strategic leveraging of the Clinton Foundation; and, the celebrity goodwill ambassadors (e.g. Carter, Bono, Geldof, Brangelina) whose various initiatives (e.g. AIDS in Africa), leveraged by the media, are mobilizing individual donors.

International philanthropy is structured around the same kinds of fields and issues we find in domestic philanthropy—the environment, culture, and human services. Some of their particular expressions, however, are more extreme abroad, owing to radical differences in culture, economic development, and environmental conditions. Examples are public health crises, deep poverty, genocide, human and women’s rights, long-term community and civic development, as well as refugee care, disasters, and humanitarian relief. Massive as these problems are, opportunities for effecting change in the international arena are now readily available through philanthropy. Donors can develop their own foreign policies by creating portfolios of international philanthropic investments that express and support their own visions of a better world.

There are several important differences to bear in mind between domestic and international giving. First, scales of goals and accomplishments can differ from those of domestic programs. Funds channeled through US-based global programs incur operating and administrative costs over and above those needed in domestic operations. Challenges that confront international programs in war-torn countries, environmentally devastated regions, or displaced refugee communities can be difficult to anticipate and handle. Unforeseen contingencies abound. Experience gained and lessons learned by donors in domestic philanthropy may or may not apply to foreign situations, owing to these differences. Certainly philanthropic experience helps donors to be attentive and responsive to grantees and their situations, but proven solutions to domestic problems are not necessarily ‘best practices’ abroad. Understanding cultural, social, religious, economic, political, legal and even technological conditions in which funds will be used abroad requires research and self-education. Third party interests, government bureaucracies, and even international politics can also heavily impact outcomes. Nonetheless, opportunities in international philanthropy have never been greater or more far-reaching, nor the needs more urgent, than they are now.

Rachel A. Bird Anderson
Former International Public Health Practitioner