On his first day in office in 2017, Mark Green, the newly-appointed USAID Administrator told staff, “I believe the purpose of foreign assistance should be ending its need to exist. … Each of our programs should look forward to the day when we can end it. And around the world, we should measure our work by how far each investment moves us closer to that day.” In other words, it should be the goal of every charitable endeavor with a clear foresight to not leave their constituents with a lasting dependence but instead, assist them in such a way that they can thrive on their own at some point in the future.

To better appreciate this aspiration, it is helpful to reiterate the notion of philanthropy, development organization, charity, nonprofit, NGO, or whatever else one might call it (onwards, I use these words interchangeably). In the simplest sense, philanthropy is when private individuals and organizations – and foreign governments in case of underdeveloped countries – jump in to provide the impoverished individuals and communities with goods and services, that the economy, the society and the government fails to deliver, that are necessary for their sustenance, and that improve their self-esteem and freedom to choose (to use Amartya Sen’s definition).

In short, philanthropy aims to temporarily fill the void left by the governments and the socioeconomic system in the hopes that eventually, either the impoverished individuals and communities themselves or the government becomes capable enough to fill it. In practice, however, we rarely see a philanthropic organization talking about how close it is to say ‘permanently ending’ poverty in this region, or achieving a ‘lasting improvement’ in educational and health outcomes in that community. Very limited to no efforts in ensuring the sustainability of impact in the post-project period means that philanthropy goes on forever.

Read the full article about changing our philanthropic focus by Basil Dogra at FeedbackLabs.