In Decade Since 9/11, Philanthropy Has Missed Some Key Opportunities

Read more news and opinion about the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Ten years ago, the possibility of a terrorist attack on the United States was far from the minds of most Americans. In Washington, while some national-security experts were growing worried about intelligence reports they were getting, the city was more concerned about the potential involvement of a California congressman in the disappearance of one of his interns. The White House was busy putting together a “communities of character” tour for President Bush in October, designed to promote his “faith-based initiative,” which had run into opposition.

After September 11, that plan was scrapped as so much changed in the United States. A decade later, the worst fears of another attack have fortunately not materialized, and some of the problems philanthropy expected to encounter have not occurred.

But while nonprofits are better prepared for the next disaster, foundations have not fully met the challenges presented by the global war on terror. Among those challenges: spurring civic action at home, promoting a better understanding of the region from which the attacks originated, and making aid to that part of the world more useful.

The outpouring of civic spirit in the country in the wake of September 11 seemed to mark a turning point in American history, a renewed commitment to the nation’s ideals, both at home and abroad. Said one White House aide who had been involved in planning the October tour, the attacks did more to build “communities of character” than a series of presidential speeches would have.

Not only did Americans respond generously to help victims in the aftermath of the attacks but interest in continued community service rose, too, especially among young people. Applications for programs like AmeriCorps and for the armed forces soared. Answering repeated questions about what Americans could do to help, President Bush started a major project—USA Freedom Corps—to promote volunteering and channel the eagerness of Americans to serve a variety of programs for enhancing homeland security.

Ten years later, however, civic spirit in the United States has waned. According to the 2010 Civic Health Assessment, compiled by the National Conference on Citizenship and other groups, volunteering rates have been declining since 2005. Although AmeriCorps and the armed forces continue to attract applicants, poor employment prospects in the economy, at least as much as patriotism, may be responsible.

The Obama administration incorporated USA Freedom Corps into a broader set of neighborhood-improvement and social-innovation projects. While some of its programs continue to operate, Citizen Corps, its most prominent, has half as many affiliates as it had five years ago.

Nonetheless, in at least one respect, the philanthropic world has improved its position since 2001. Like American military and intelligence agencies, disaster-preparedness organizations are now better equipped and trained to respond to terrorist attacks.

Indeed, observers see the past decade as ushering in a “new era of emergency management.” Its key features include recognition of the value of closer collaboration between first responders—police, fire, and emergency medical personnel—and nonprofit groups, such as the American Red Cross and Salvation Army. In New York and Washington 10 years ago, the lack of such coordination led to confusion, poor communication, and other difficulties.

To be sure, these improved working relationships are due as much to the problems that arose after Hurricane Katrina as to those encountered in providing assistance on September 11. Moreover, how well they will actually operate under the pressure of another—and possibly even more destructive—attack cannot really be known in advance.

But the fact that disaster-preparedness groups today have more capacity to handle a terrorist attack—and police and intelligence forces to prevent one—is an achievement few experts would have predicted in 2001.

Worries about what might happen to international involvement by donors and nonprofits have also proved largely unfounded.

After September 11, it became clear that donations had been funneled to terrorist groups to buy weapons instead of humanitarian or social-service aid. The federal government as well as international bodies began to prosecute charity officials and others who financed terrorism and imposed many restrictions designed to increase the difficulty of making such gifts.

Foundations and other groups that represent donors objected that these measures would stifle contributions for international projects, especially in the Middle East.

However, according to the Foundation Center, the amount of money American foundations award overseas has grown more rapidly in the past decade than foundation giving as a whole.

Large grants from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are part of the reason, but even without them, the share of philanthropic dollars provided to international projects has increased.

Similarly, college and university administrators feared that post-September 11 visa restrictions would reduce the number of international students who attend American institutions. In fact, enrollment has risen. The Institute of International Education estimates that nearly 700,000 international students were taking courses in the United States in 2009-10, 25 percent more than in 2000-1. However, programs directed at the Middle East make up just a small share of grant-making and international-exchange activity. Less than 5 percent of foundation gifts to other countries went from the United States to the region.

Moreover, the Middle East ranks far below Asia, Europe, and Latin America as a place of origin for international students or destination for Americans studying abroad. Indeed, the share of American students going to the Middle East is now lower than it was 10 years ago.

Foreign-language instruction has declined at all levels of education. Although more students are studying Arabic than in the past, the need for people fluent in the language is not close to meeting the needs, experts say.

In short, America has missed opportunities to enhance its citizens’ understanding of a region that grew more important after September 11, 2001, and despite some recent efforts in the wake of the “Arab spring” has also not given it the share of practical aid that would be smart to provide. But unlike military or diplomatic challenges, philanthropy can readily close such gaps.

In the early days of the cold war, American donors and nonprofits showed they could play significant roles in establishing foreign-area study, student exchange, language training, and economic-assistance programs. They have not done nearly as much during the global war on terror. If the 10th anniversary of September 11 is to be more than just a day of sad memories, more effectively enlisting philanthropy in the effort would be a good way to start.