 |
| Photo by Flickr user Jeff Kubina. |
As I was perusing the Chicago Tribune online last week, the title of an article stuck out to me: Small change adds up for philanthropist.
The article is about Adam Carter, who is a beer vendor for the Chicago Cubs and White Sox (go Cubs!) for half the year, and the other half he travels to far away destinations as “an international microphilanthropist trying to save forgotten, impoverished nooks of the world one modest donation at a time.”
Through small donations from individuals as well as his own beer vending funds, he gives money to small organizations or individuals whose needs he has identified through his years of travel. Carter strongly values having a personal connection to where his money is going and believes that strategic aid “can yield a strong, personal connection.” He would rather give the money himself as he travels the globe, and asserts that larger aid organizations can become victims of bureaucracy and aren’t as in touch with the social norms of the areas they serve as he, and others like him, are.
Despite Carter’s views, representatives of “traditional” philanthropy question about the actual impact of travel philanthropy, and the scope of aid offered when compared to larger organizations:
“They can point to individual stories, but if you can do it on a bigger scale, you can substantially impact the well-being of a community. I’m not against the idea, I just don’t consider it the most effective way of helping,” said Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy in Chicago.
I wonder whether grassroots philanthropy, with funds going directly from donor to a small international organization or individual in need, can make a long-term difference in an area of poverty. Is a donation of $5 today enough to improve the lives of the recipients, or is it merely a “here today, gone tomorrow” scenario that improves lives in the short-term, but has no discernible long-term impact?
But, ultimately, do either of these questions really matter, as long as the donor is content with the relationships built, knowing the inherent limitations of this type of philanthropy?
Join the conversation: Have you participated in travel philanthropy? Is it a band-aid, or a long-term solution to a community’s needs?
- Megan Sullivan, MCF’s communications associate
This is a very interesting topic to me, as an international traveller. For many years, I avoided making contributions directly to individuals or communities because I figured I couldn’t “save the world.” But in 2005 I met a young man in Malawi whose genuine openness and obvious need shook my assumptions. He had dropped out of high school for lack of $38, the entire cost for a semester including room and board! So in 2007 when I was back in Malawi, I found him and now at age 22 he’s in his third year of high school, with my support. I may not be able to “save the world” but I can save a person, with lasting benefits to that person and the community.
Not everything is a matter of money, sometimes it’s connecting people. I introduced another Malawian via email to a liberal arts college in Iowa. He has been looking for a university education which is hard to obtain in a poor country, and the college has been looking for more diversity and culture in its sheltered home community. It looks like he’ll be attending there this fall, on a full scholarship, and my investment will be a lot of frequent flyer miles to get him to Iowa.
Direct participation is not a substitute for giving to larger development organizations who reach people I won’t see or can accomplish bigger projects or address crises. But it has benefit in enhancing lives, and builds bonds of trust and friendship that make our world a more human and just home.
Hi,
I have been doing similar work as Adam Carter’s for the past 19 years and I can state unequivocally that this type of work can lead to powerful and long-lasting results. The choice is not between Bill Gates’ organization of the UN vs. donating $5.00 There is a lot in-between. My project has built schools for as little as $1,500 and as much as $20,000. I’ve paid for many surgical procedures for children that costs as little as $25 and as much as $4,000. Took 40 children in Cambodia for the first time to the dentist. total cost was $325. Distributed 500 insecticide-treated mosquito nets to villagers in SE Asia for $1,500. Etc.Etc. So it’s not either or; It’s great to have large organizations affecting large sectors of a poor country. But there is no doubt in my mind that small, targeted giving can have profound results. Suppose it was you being given a loan for a small business or a bicycle or medicine for your sick mother somewhere in, say, Indonesia. I can assure you it would mean a great deal.
…a “here today, gone tomorrow” scenario that improves lives in the short-term, but has no discernible long-term impact?
As I write this I am preparing a final itinerary for a Minnesota family who will travel to Kenya in August 2008 with the sole intent of giving their three children a chance to experience Philanthropic Travel -much the same way I did as a child over 30 years ago.
Learn More: http://tinyurl.com/6oyp82
The Minnesota family is establishing a foundation from which their American children will direct donations benefiting the projects they will visit…
Marc Gold, one of the Visionary Philanthropic Travelers mentioned in the Chicago Tribune article you site began his life long journey of generosity in a conversation with his father when he was a very young boy too.
Learn More: http://tinyurl.com/5qra5n
Marc and my stories stand as long term testimonials to the value of Philanthropic Travel.. and we are just two of many, many untold stories….