When we, at TAI, began researching the topic of global philanthropy, one thing became abundantly clear: We live in an interconnected world and, in the last two years alone, almost every community and country has been affected by the global financial crisis.

Some foundations (especially smaller, place-based organizations) might believe it’s more effective to give close to home while others believe strongly that their philanthropy has less impact if larger, global challenges—such as the environment, immigration, global conflict, hunger, poverty, etc.—aren’t solved.

Considering our economic realities and in your role as a grantmaker, do you believe you should support only local communities? Or, because of widespread need, should you reach out globally? Or, is it effective to blend both strategies and, if so, why?

We posed this question to our membership and here’s what we learned.

We need to do both. One will only work if we look after the other. It’s symbiotic. A current example: The city in which our community foundation operates has responded quickly and generously to the earthquake disaster in Haiti. There are dozens of fundraising initiatives raising lots of money. All of it is going to Haiti.

Meantime, the local Haitian community is burned out, stressed, and quickly going into debt in their efforts to support the local initiatives, and to help their friends and family back home. So our foundation has established a different kind of fund, supported by our foundation and the broader community. From it, grants will be made to support the needs of local Haitians and the organizations that serve them.

Barbara McInnes
Community Foundation of Ottawa

You ask whether grantmakers should support local communities, reach out globally, or blend both strategies. I think there are a series of questions that precede those:

• What outcome are we trying to achieve?
• What is our foundation’s unique value in achieving that outcome?
• What strategies should we pursue given our resources, expertise, and networks?

The most significant social and economic issues are global and connected. With unlimited resources, a grantmaker might both think and act globally. But most grantmakers will likely pursue strategies that achieve the greatest alignment among the answers to the above questions.

I believe it makes sense to do both, if you do business internationally. I even think it makes sense to give based on a percentage of the amount of income that comes from the United States versus international locations….However, if the company is not multinational, I think it makes perfect sense to give in the U.S. I do not think companies who are domestic are responsible for solving larger global problems.

This question has different meanings to various grantmakers. There are many different dimensions of grantmaking responsibilities to examine. As a global corporation, what is global to some is local to us. We make grants on a global basis but in the localities where we have a presence. There are many more communities in great need, but with limited resources we believe we can make the most meaningful contribution in those communities where our employees live and work. Within that there are priorities to set and hard choices to make. There is no one right answer. The beauty of philanthropy is that each grantmaker can follow what speaks to them as right and each path has value.

Celene Peurye
The Baxter International Foundation

My input on the above question would be: Both. Many of the issues the world faces today are global in nature: adequate food supply, water, climate change, affordable housing, health, and education. And with these global challenges, there is a certain amount of work that needs to be done to raise awareness and understanding, to encourage broad-based engagement and debate on these subjects with IGOs (intergovernmental organizations), NGOs, governments, policy leaders, opinion leaders, business, and academia.

At the same time the solutions to these issues are local. Thus local philanthropy and social entrepreneurship are critical. While the world has a global water challenge, the needs in India are different within India let alone different from the U.S. or Africa or Western Europe, so the solutions will need to be local. Local solutions take into account not only the technical nature of the problem, i.e., water scarcity or presence of certain pollutants or sediment, etc., but also take into account the social considerations and local customs/norms, etc.

I think this same “glocal” notion applies to food, housing, education, etc.

Bo Miller
The Dow Chemical Company

As the area community foundation serving Philadelphia and the four surrounding counties, obviously our primary focus is that. Regarding global issues however, we can act as a resource to our constituents about global issues and a conduit for them to reach out globally as with Haiti where we administered two funds for Haiti relief. This, while remaining true to our focus area—Philadelphia and surrounding counties.

R. Andrew Swinney
The Philadelphia Foundation

Whether the world is in a global recession or not, I believe a fundamental question for a donor is: “Where can I make the most difference with my philanthropy?” The definitive answer is: “It depends.” If you define the word “where” geographically, then it’s a choice somewhere along the continuum from global to local. If “where” is a thematic question, then perhaps a focus area might be critical such as healthcare, education, or environment. Still again, “where” may refer to systems change and the possible arenas may be local politics, national policy or multi-lateral global relations. It depends.

Richard Woo
The Russell Family Foundation

Both global and local issues are important and you can’t ultimately have a healthy local community without a healthy global community, so we need funders in both arenas. As a community foundation, our primary focus is local, but we also support donors with their international philanthropy. Regardless of what donors choose, they should start by identifying their values and interests first and then decide on geography. And if donors’ funds are limited, they should try to narrow their focus as much as possible or align their giving with other funders.

Jennifer Martin
The Seattle Foundation

I believe in a blended strategy. It is important to work in your local community, but even a small investment in larger global issues can make a difference. A good first step for a blended strategy is to consider nonprofits or intermediaries in your community that are working on global issues or working in specific countries. Even small contributions can go a long way in developing countries. Additionally, if all foundations were collectively contributing to global causes, we might see shifts in these larger issues that can have an impact locally.

Tony Tapia
Western Union Foundation

As a foundation with less than $100 million in assets, and a preference for deep engagement with communities, we come down on the side of local. It would be hard at our size to engage effectively with overseas grantees.

David Nee
William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund