Ending Child Marriage, Promoting Girls’ Education

Occasionally, I reproduce on this blog posts that I published elsewhere. As basic education is one of the areas of focus of  the Rotary Foundation, some of you may be interested in a study on the economic impacts of child marriage, including on girls’ education, that I recently completed at the World Bank. The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and the Global Partnership for Education, and done in partnership with the International Center for Research on Women. A post on the relationship between child marriage and girls’ education that appeared yesterday on the blog of the Global Partnership for Education is reproduced below together with links to related publications (picture below credited to the World Bank).

___________

Children in a temporary school in Goucheme Niger,  © Stephan Gladieu / World Bank

Post published with the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) on June 29, 2017:

Every day, 41,000 girls marry before they are 18 years old. That’s 15 million girls every year. What are the economic impacts and costs of child marriage, and how does the practice relate to girls’ educational attainment?

A new study on the economic impacts of child marriage by the World Bank and the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) suggests that the negative impacts of child marriage on a wide range of development outcomes are large. This is the case not only for child brides, but also for their children and for societies overall. The study benefited from support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, and the Global Partnership for Education.

Child marriage leads to population growth and entrenched poverty

Detailed analysis was carried for 15 countries, with extrapolations done for some of the impacts and costs of child marriage for more than 100 developing countries. Globally, between now and 2030, child marriage is expected to cost the equivalent of trillions of dollars to populations in the developing world.

The largest impacts in terms of economic costs are through fertility and population growth. Child marriage leads girls to have children earlier and more children over their lifetime. This in turns reduces the ability of households to meet their basic needs, and thereby contributes to poverty. Ending child marriage would generate large welfare benefits through a reduction in population growth, helping to usher in the demographic dividend.

Early marriage makes completing education almost impossible for girls

The relationship between child marriage and educational attainment for girls is also strong. In most developing countries, it is extremely difficult for girls to remain in school once they get married.

As a result, child marriage reduces the likelihood that girls will complete their secondary education. This emerges clearly from questions asked to parents in household surveys as to why their daughters dropped out of school. Marriage is often one of the main, if not the main reason, that adolescent girls drop out of school.

A similar conclusion is reached when modelling the relationship between child marriage and educational attainment econometrically. The effects are large. Every year that a girl marries early (i.e., before 18) is associated with a reduction in the likelihood of completing secondary school of typically four to 10 percentage points, depending on the country or region. This leads to lower earnings for child brides in adulthood since a lack of education prevents them from getting good jobs. In addition, child marriage also reduces education prospects for the children of child brides by curtailing their mother’s education.

The good news is that conversely, keeping girls in school is one of the best ways to delay marriage. This finding emerges from the literature on interventions that have proven successful in delaying the age at first marriage. It also emerges from the empirical estimations conducted for the study. The estimates suggest that across the 15 countries for which the empirical work was carried, each year of additional secondary education reduces the likelihood for girls of marrying as a child and of having a first child before the age of 18 by five to six percentage points on average.

Child marriage must end

The study provides a clear economic rationale for ending child marriage. Child marriage is not only a social issue with potentially dramatic consequences for child brides and their children. It is also an economic issue that affects the ability of countries to grow and reduce poverty. The study also suggests how ending child marriage can be done: by keeping girls in school.

What’s next? With support from GPE, two additional studies are being prepared by the World Bank team. The first study will estimate the benefits from investments in girls’ education using an approach similar to that used for the estimation of the economic costs of child marriage.

The second study will look more broadly at the role that human capital plays in the changing Wealth of Nations. Preliminary findings suggest that human capital is the largest component of the Wealth of Nations, ahead of produced and natural capital.

Together, it is hoped that these three studies on (1) the economic impacts of child marriage, (2) the benefits of investments in girls’ education, and (3) human capital and the Wealth of Nations will help advocate for increased investments in education.

For more information:

Global Report

Project brief on educational attainment

Infographic

All publications on the costs of child marriage

Improving Immunization and Fighting Polio in Pakistan

Polio remains endemic in only two countries: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Apart from polio campaigns, broader support for immunization is essential to eradicate polio. Two weeks ago (on April 21, 2016), the World Bank approved an International Development Association (IDA) credit of $50 million to increase the availability of vaccines for infectious diseases, including polio, for children under two years of age in Pakistan.  Additional funding to the amount of $80 million is provided by a World Bank administered multi-donor trust fund, Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance, and the United States Agency for International Development. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also participates through a buy-down mechanism (on what a buy-down amounts to, click here). Below is information on the project reproduced from the World Bank’s website (the original link for the information is here).

______________

The National Immunization Support Project (NISP) is supporting the country’s Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) that aims to immunize all children against eight vaccine preventable diseases:  tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenza type b (Hib), and measles. Strengthening EPI will also support Pakistan’s access to newer vaccines which are either in the process of roll out (pneumococcal vaccine) or under planning (rotavirus vaccine).

The Project is also receiving additional support of $80 million grant from a World Bank administered multi-donor trust fund, Gavi – the Vaccine Alliance, and the United States Agency for International Development. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also supporting the project through an innovative partial conversion of the IDA credit into a grant upon successful achievement of project objectives.

“Pakistan is grappling with the public health emergency of polio virus transmission. Ensuring strong routine immunization services is the first essential pillar in polio eradication”, says Illango Patchamuthu, World Bank Country Director for Pakistan. “The World Bank and other development partners are working with the Government of Pakistan to strengthen routine immunization services at the critical endgame stage of polio eradication, particularly as Pakistan introduces injectable polio vaccine into its routine schedule”.

The project will incentivize provincial government capacity for rigorous monitoring and effective implementation of its program, including strengthened vaccine logistics, and deploying and expanding qualified technical and managerial personnel.

“Pakistan’s performance in maternal and child health remains weak and inadequate immunization coverage is a major challenge. Childhood immunization against vaccine preventable diseases can help in significant reductions in disability and death”, says Robert Oelrichs, World Bank Task Team Leader of the Project. “The project will establish linkages of the federal and provincial EPI cells with private sector health providers and health-related civil society organizations (CSOs) working in low coverage catchment areas – especially urban slums.”

Children under two years of age in Pakistan are the main beneficiaries of NISP – particularly children belonging to the poorest households in which immunization coverage is lowest. In addition, all children will benefit from strengthened polio and measles interventions.

The credit is financed by IDA, the World Bank’s fund for the poor, with a maturity of 25 years, including a grace period of 5 years.

Child Marriage: A Persistent Hurdle to Health and Prosperity

Yesterday, on October 11, the world marked the International Day of the Girl Child. While the day is an opportunity to advocate for girls’ rights across many sectors, one persistent, pernicious issue deserves renewed attention:  the high prevalence of child marriage. This is an issue of importance for governments, but also for NGOs, including service club organizations such as Rotary that are investing substantially in education and health.

Child marriage

Every year, 15 million girls marry before the age of 18. Child marriage is associated with higher health risks for these girls and their children. It also contributes to high population growth, thereby threatening access of households to the often scarce resources they need to thrive, and putting pressures on government budgets to deliver quality services.

The elimination of child, early and forced marriage is now part of the Sustainable Development Goals under Target 5 – achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls. This is good news. But for governments, NGOs, and communities to take the challenge of the elimination of child marriage seriously, more evidence is needed on the negative impacts of child marriage, as well as what works to eliminate the practice.

The International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and the World Bank are collaborating in an innovative, three-year research project to do just that. The project involves the most extensive data analysis – and for three countries, new data collection – undertaken so far to better understand and measure the economic costs of child marriage. Funding for the project is provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation.

A brief on selected preliminary results from the analysis was shared at a side event at the United Nations General Assembly last month. It suggests that child marriage has large negative effects on population, health, and nutrition.

Fertility and Population Growth

The number of children a woman has over her lifetime has significant impacts on her health, her ability to engage in activities outside of the household, and the poverty level of her household. Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys for a half dozen countries suggests large impacts of child marriage on the number of live births for a woman over her lifetime. In Nigeria, for example, girls who married at age 12 have a number of births higher by 30% on average than women who married after the age of 18. Even marrying at age 17, rather than 18, increases the number of births by 18%.

On average, women marrying as children have 1.4 more children over their lifetime than if they marry after the age of 18. In some countries such as Egypt, the impact is smaller, but in other countries such as Ethiopia, it is larger.

Because girls who marry early have a higher number of births over their lifetime, child marriage contributes to higher population growth. Estimates suggest that in countries with a high incidence of child marriage, such as Niger, annual rates of population growth could be reduced substantially each year if child marriage were eliminated, and there were no increases in births outside of marriage by adolescent girls. The implications of these changes at the aggregate level for both government and private expenditures would be significant, placing less demand on often over-stretched services and infrastructure, as well as government and private budgets, and generating a potentially large “demographic dividend.”

Under-Five Mortality and Malnutrition

Child marriage increases the risk of maternal and under-five mortality and morbidity, leading to significant social and economic impacts from the individual level  to the national level. Analysis of Demographic and Health Surveys suggests that the risk of death before age five for children increases substantially when the child is born to a mother below 18 years of age, as compared to a child with similar characteristics born to an older mother. Delaying marriage therefore would help reduce infant and child mortality.

Children born to child brides also have a higher risk of malnutrition than children born to older mothers — a significant barrier to the health of the child, their educational prospects, and, in the longer term, their contribution to household and national economies through their labor. Analysis based on Demographic and Health Surveys suggests that children born from child brides have higher risks of stunting than children born from mothers older than 18, with additional risks resulting from a higher likelihood of low birthweight. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, the effect is estimated at seven percentage points. At the aggregate level, this could have significant effects for countries seeking to enhance the human capacity and health of their population.

Multiple Impacts

It is often said that the process of development is multidimensional, with vulnerabilities in some areas affecting other areas. Child marriage is a perfect example of this, since it affects so many areas in the lives of the girls who marry early, their children, and their communities. This is true for health, nutrition, and population, but also for education, labor force participation and earnings, decision-making ability within the household, and even the risk of gender-based violence. As a result, the economic impacts and associated costs of child marriage are large and far-reaching.

Results from joint ICRW-World Bank research on this issue will be updated on the project website as they become available. A launch event for sharing the main results from the first phase of the research is planned for the second half of November 2015 at the World Bank.

This post is reproduced with minor changes from a post by the author on the World Bank’s Investing in Health blog available at http://blogs.worldbank.org/health/.

Buying Down Polio (Partnerships Series No. 2)

By partnering with the World Bank in an innovative way, Rotary has successfully leveraged  its funding for polio eradication, contributing to success towards one year without polio in Nigeria and in Africa. This post, the second in a series on partnerships, innovation, and evaluation, explains how the innovative polio buy-down mechanism has worked.

PIC 3. FROM LEFT: PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI VACCINATING HIS THREE MONTHS OLD GRAND-DAUGHTER, ZULEIHA BELLO ABUBAKAR WITH ORAL POLIO VACCINE TO MARK ONE YEAR OF FREE POLIO CASE IN NIGERIA AT THE PRESIDENTIAL VILLA ABUJA ON SATURDAY (25/7/15). WITH HIM ARE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PRIMARY HEALTH CARE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NPHCDA) DR ADO MUHAMMAD AND THE INCIDENT MANAGER, POLIO EMERGENCY OPERATION ABUJA CENTRE, DR ANDREW ETSANO 028/JULY2015/ICE/STATE-HOUSE
Nigeria’s President vaccinates his granddaughter – Photo courtesy of Dr. Etsano.

Last month, Africa achieved a key milestone towards polio eradication, with no case of polio observed for a full year. It will still take a few weeks for the World Health Organization to officially certify this milestone, and for the region to be declared polio-free, no polio cases should be observed for a period of three years. Still, tremendous progress towards polio eradication has been accomplished. Just a few years ago, hundreds of cases of polio were observed annually in Nigeria. The country achieved its first full year without polio on July 24, 2015. This will leave only Afghanistan and Pakistan on the list of polio-endemic countries.

As noted in a recent post on the World Bank health blog, achieving one year without polio in Nigeria required persistence and courage. In some areas, professionals and volunteers who led the polio campaigns risked their life: Boko Haram assassinated nine polio vaccinators two years ago in the north of the country. Vaccinators had to rely on “hit and run” tactics to reduce exposure to risk, vaccinating children quickly in the morning and leaving the area by the afternoon. (For an understanding of the role of a wide range of people at the heart of polio eradication (in the case of Afghanistan), see the great slide show provided by the Global Polio Eradication Initiative.)

The polio campaigns also required great effort and creativity from multiple agencies, including through an innovative buy-down mechanism implemented by the World Bank and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as Rotary International and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control via the U.N. Foundation. (The Gates Foundation and Rotary International are the two largest donors worldwide towards polio eradication over the last 30 years.) Partnership with the government of Nigeria, the World Health Organization (WHO), and UNICEF, among others, was also crucial to the success of the campaigns.

How did the polio buy-down mechanism work? The basic idea was for the World Bank to fund polio eradication projects through concessional IDA (International Development Association) loans. In the case of Nigeria, two projects worth $285 million, including additional financing, were implemented over the last dozen years. The projects included clauses that allowed loans to Nigeria to become grants if the country achieved a high level of polio immunization coverage. In other words, if the immunization targets indicated in the loans were achieved and verified independently through in-depth audits, the government would receive grant funding for polio eradication without the need to repay the loans.

For the government of Nigeria, this was potentially a great deal. And for the Gates Foundation and the Rotary Foundation of Rotary International, this was also a pretty good investment. In general, investments towards polio eradication have been shown to be fairly cost-effective. But with the buy-down mechanism, these investments were especially cost-effective.

Due to the concessional nature of IDA loans (long-term zero or low-interest loans which grace repayment periods), for every dollar contributed to the buy-down, the actual amount of resources that could be transferred to the government for the polio campaigns was two times larger. The buy-down funds were transferred by the Gates Foundation and Rotary International (in the case of Rotary in partnership with the United Nations Foundation) to the World Bank at the start of the project, and used to repay the loan at the end of the project if the target immunization rates had been achieved.

Through this buy-down mechanism, the Gates Foundation and Rotary International were able to offset all future loan repayment obligations with a much smaller amount of funding to pay back IDA than the face value of the loans granted to Nigeria. Again, one dollar invested by these private donors generated about $2 for polio eradication in Nigeria, with a similar mechanism in place for Pakistan. The mechanism also had built-in incentives to encourage strong implementation performance by the government of Nigeria since the loans would be transformed into grants only if the specific immunization targets were to be achieved.

At the time of the first buy-down mechanism for polio, then-World Bank President James. D. Wolfensohn stated, “The partnership to buy-down loans to grants on the basis of good performance is an example of the innovative thinking occurring in the private sector and the World Bank about how to increase finances for the fight against global diseases. This financial innovation is bringing the goal of a polio-free world one large step closer to becoming reality.”

Could similar buy-down mechanisms be applied in other areas? That was probably the hope when this innovative mechanism was created for polio a dozen years ago. It seems however that with few exceptions the idea has not yet been replicated much in other development areas, even if it has been mentioned in a number of reports, including in a Results for Development report on education.

A number of conditions have to be met for this type of buy-down mechanism to be successful. But in the case of polio, it has been successful, enabling the Gates Foundations, individual Rotarian donors through the Rotary Foundation, the United Nations Foundation, and the World Bank to achieve higher impact towards polio eradication than would have been the case otherwise.

A brief on polio in Africa and the buy-down mechanism is available here.

This post is reproduced with minor changes from a post published by the author on September 2, 2015 on the World Bank’s Financing for Development blog at http://www.fin4dev.org/.

Rotary Foundation Basics, Part 2: Where Does the Money Go?

by Quentin Wodon

This second post in a series of three looks at how funding provided by The Rotary Foundation (TRF) is allocated. TRF disbursed $232 million in program expenses last year. More than half ($131 million) was allocated PolioPlus, with the rest allocated to Rotary grants ($92 million) and other programs ($ 8 million). This post briefly describes and discusses those investments.

TRF Polio Vaccine

Polio

TRF gave $131 million in 2013-14 for polio. While the report does not state explicitly where the funding came from, simple calculations suggest that two thirds may have come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), with the rest provided by Rotarians. This is because from 2013 to 2018, for every dollar raised by Rotary for PolioPlus, BMGF provides a 2 to 1 match up to a maximum of $70 million per year, as shown in the Figure below. In addition, TRF’s annual report mentions a previous $20 million match by BMGF for polio on the revenue side. If the $90 million in revenues provided by BMGF for polio were allocated the same year to TRF program expenses (this is not stated explicitly in the report), then Rotarians would have contributed in 2013-14 about a third of total TRF program expenses for polio. If my assumption is erroneous, please let me know!

TRF Polio

As mentioned in my first post for this blog, Polio used to be a devastating disease worldwide, affecting 30,000 children per year in the US alone in the mid-1950s. Thanks to vaccines and mass immunization, the number of polio cases has dropped to close to zero. This has been a great success built on public-private partnerships. While many governments have funded polio eradication campaigns, after the United States (with $2.2 billion in contributions and pledges) the two largest donors from 1985 to 2014 have been private foundations – BMGF ($1.9 billion) and Rotary International ($1.3 billion). Apart from financial donations, hundreds of thousands of volunteers – including many Rotarians – have participated in polio vaccination campaigns.

Today, it seems to me from informal conversations with fellow Rotarians that some wonder whether it still makes sense to spend that much money on a disease that now affects few children. Is this the best investment that TRF can make? This is a difficult question to answer, but there is evidence that at the very least, this is a good investment, simply because the cost of a spreading virus could be much higher than the cost of the polio eradication campaigns. A report prepared last year for BMGF suggests that previous investments of $9 billion since the creation in 1984 of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) may have generated $27 billion in net benefits out of $40-50 billion in potential benefits estimated by researchers in an economic analysis of GPEI. Investments in polio eradication campaigns do have higher initial costs than routine immunization, but they may also have greater long term payoffs.

At the same time, we need to be careful in what we promise. It is important to reach the last mile towards polio eradication, but this will not be easy. Vaccination remains difficult in conflict affected areas, and the risk of exportation of the virus from those areas to other countries is real. As the TRF report highlights, only three countries remain polio-endemic today (Pakistan, Afganisthan, and Nigeria). But reports documented polio outbreaks last year in Central Asia, the Middle East, and Central Africa, leading the World Health Organization to declare in May 2014 that the spread of the virus constituted an “extraordinary event”. In terms of costs and funding as well, there seem to be some challenges. In a February 2014 report, UNICEF and WHO estimated the price tag for polio eradication for the period 2013-18 at $5.5 billion. At the time, available and confirmed contributions amounted to $1.8 billion, so that there was a funding gap of $3.7 billion.

Rotary Grants and Other Programs

TRF’s annual report provides great stories of impact in other areas of interventions apart from polio, but relatively limited details on how funds are allocated by thematic area. The information provided focuses on the allocation of funds for global grants in each of six areas of focus of TRF apart from polio. A total of $47.3 million was disbursed for global grants in 2013-14. As shown in the Figure below, disease prevention and treatment received the largest allocation (265 grants for a total value of $14.2 million), followed by water and sanitation (198 grants and $11.2 million), economic and community development (148 grants and $7.8 million), basic education and literacy (121 grants and $6.5 million), maternal and child health (69 grants and $5.1 million), and finally peace and conflict prevention/resolution (67 grants and $2.7 million, excluding allocations to Rotary peace centers in a handful of universities).

TRF Global Grants

Information is also available in the TRF annual report on which regions benefit from the largest amount of funding all programs combined. Sub-Saharan Africa came first, with $104 million in funding provided, followed by South Asia ($56 million), East Asia and the Pacific ($24 million), North America ($19 million), the Middle East and North Africa as well as Europe (each $9 million), Central America and the Caribbean ($6 million), Latin America ($5 million), and finally Russia, Georgia, and the Commonwealth of Independent States (less than $1 million).

That’s it for the basics of how TRF program expenses are allocated. While a majority of funds allocated by TRF go to polio, quite a bit of this investment comes from matching funds provided by BMGF, so that a large share of the funds donated by Rotarians or earned by the foundation from its assets go to other priority areas. In the last post in this series, I will discuss the foundation’s performance.

Note: This post is part of a series of three on TRF: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Rotary Foundation Basics, Part 1: How Large is the Foundation?

by Quentin Wodon

The Rotary Foundation of Rotary International is a major player in the work of Rotarians worldwide. True, most activities organized by clubs and indeed most service projects are implemented independently of the Rotary Foundation, which I will refer to as “TRF” in this post. Many clubs have their own foundations and many projects do not require a foundation to be implemented. But for most investments at scale, TRF does play a key role, so Rotarians should have at least a basic knowledge of the foundation. My guess is that this is not the case today, so I thought it might be useful to run a three post series on some of the basics of the foundation. This first post discusses assets and expenses. The next will look at categories of expenses by thematic areas. The third will discuss management and suggest a few ideas to make TRF more impactful.

RTF Report

How large is TRF In Terms of Assets?

A widely used measure of the size of a foundation is its assets. According to their latest annual report (consolidated statements of activities), TRF and Rotary International had $1.2 billion in total assets as of the end the 2013-14 fiscal year, and $1.09 billion in assets net of liabilities. This represented an increase in net assets of about $130 million versus the previous year (2012-13) when net assets were at $961 million and total assets were at $1.08 billion.

One billion dollars is no small change, but some other foundations are even larger. Within the US, TRF would rank about 71st in terms of assets according to data from the Foundation Center (for some reason, TRF is not listed in the top 100 foundations put together by the Foundation Center, so the exact ranking is not available). The largest US foundation is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which had more than $40 billion in assets at the end of 2013. A dozen other US foundations have assets between $5 billion and $15 billion, and many more had assets between $1 billion and $5 billion.

In other words, in comparison to some of the largest US foundations, TRF could be considered as mid-size, even if it remains large in comparison to most foundations that tend to be much smaller. In comparison to foundations from other service club organizations, TRF is also the largest by far. Lions Clubs International now has more members than Rotary worldwide, but the Lions Clubs International Foundation had total assets in 2014 of $318 million. This is still large, but quite a bit smaller than TRF. The Kiwanis International Foundation is much smaller in terms of assets ($28 million in 2013).

How large is TRF In Terms of Grants?

Grants matter more than assets, since this is where the foundations make a difference. In 2013-14, TRF and RI had consolidated total expenses of $350 million. About two thirds of that amount ($232 million) were allocated to program expenses. The rest went to TRF development expenses ($16 million), TRF general administration ($5 million), RI operating expenses ($73 million) and RI service and other activities ($25 million).

With $232 million in program giving last year, TRF would have ranked about 25th among US foundation according to the list from the Foundation Center. This is a pretty good ranking. By comparison, the Lions Clubs International Foundation provided $44 million in grants in 2014, and the Kiwanis International Foundation made $18 million in grants in 2013. Only one US foundation – the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations – gives more than one billion dollar in grants per year (it gives over $3 billion per year).

Why is there such a jump in terms of ranking for TRF among US foundations when considering grants or contributions instead of assets? In large part because many US foundations rely mostly or quasi exclusively on their endowments to make grants, without necessarily a lot of extra funding coming in annually (apart from returns on equity). By contrast TRF is able to rely also on donations from Rotarians, among others through its annual fund. In 2013-14, revenues from the annual fund reached $117 million. A separate endowment fund grew by $24 million. Annual giving by Rotarians, which is invested by the Foundation, is what makes it feasible for TRF to be able to make more grants in a sustainable and long-term basis.

Annual Fund

Still, we should all realize that while substantial, $232 million in grants/contributions per year remains small in comparison to some of the investments made by other players in the field of development. Official Development Assistance flows estimated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development stood at $134.5 billion in 2013 (the largest recipient was Afghanistan, with more than $5 billion in aid). And some groups such as World Vision or Catholic Charities tend to have larger footprints than TRF. For example, World Vision provides funding to the tune of $2.3 billion per year for international programming as well as relief and rehabilitation, or about 10 times the level of contributions of TRF.

Who Gives the Most to TRF?

Since annual contributions are essential for the future of TRF, it is useful to look at who gives. The country that gives the most to TRF is (not surprisingly) the US. This is not surprising because the US has also the largest membership in Rotary. For the Rotary year 2013-14, TRF received $174 million from donors in the US. This includes $90 million in matches from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for polio, so that individual and other forms of giving reached $84 million. Japan came in second, with $15 million in giving, followed by India with $13 million, Korea with $12 million, Taiwan with $9 million, Italy with $8 million, Canada and Germany with about $7 million each, Australia with $6 million, and Brazil with $5 million.

Giving TRF

How about giving per member? On a per Rotarian basis Taiwan comes on top with $216 in giving per Rotarian, followed by Korea ($182), Canada ($168), Japan ($134), the US ($124, not including the Gates foundation matching funds), and Australia ($123). In other countries, average giving per Rotarian to TRF is below $100 per year. Considering that membership in Rotary costs much more than that including for meals in many clubs, these levels of individual giving are frankly too low, especially in the United States where donors benefit from a tax exemption when giving since TRF is a registered 501c(3) charity. But this is another matter that will not be discussed here.

Giving per person

So that’s is for the basic financial information on the size of TRF that I wanted to summarize in this post. The conclusion is that TRF is a relatively large foundation, especially in terms of contributions/grants disbursed annually. At the same time, in comparison to overall flows for projects in developing countries, TRF is not at the same level as a number of other players, which makes the issue of strategic positioning essential for the foundation. That will be the topic of the next post in this series, by looking at the categories of expenses of TRF by thematic area.

Note: This post is part of a series of three on TRF: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.