Send us a textThis is the third edition of our partnership with the  European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), in which we talk to academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes. In this episode we hear from:Marlou Ramaekers from Vrije Universitat in Amsterdam, on how behaviour modelling and encouragement from parents and partners influence our informal volunteeringNina Sooter from the University of Geneva, on using virtual reality for fundraisingLivia Ventura from the Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership, on applying a theoretical lens to our understanding of B Corporations.Related Links:September 2023 Edition of ERNOP Research NotesMarlou's paper "Informal Volunteering and Socialization Effects: Examining Modelling and Encouragement by Parents and Partner"Nina's paper with (Giuseppe Ugazio), "Virtual reality for philanthropy: A promising tool to innovate fundraising"  Livia's paper "Philanthropy and the For-profit Corporation: The Benefit Corporation as the New Form of Firm Altruism" Previous Philanthropisms/ERNOP partnership podcasts: number 1 and number 2The Why Philanthropy Matters website

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Aaron Horvath, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy & Civil Society, about his research on how nonprofits responded in an unexpected way to new regulatory reporting demands- going well above and beyond what was expected of them. Including:What is the notion of "supererogation" and how is it applied in this research to analyse the response of nonprofits to new accountability demands?Why did nonprofits choose to report more than was asked of them?Are there any risks involved in doing so?What form does supererogation take? Is it primarily narrative (i.e. nonprofits adding contextual written information to “tell their story”) or do they also create alternative quantitative measures?Is supererogation with respect to external measures a demonstration of empowerment, or does it reflect disempowerment?Why has there been an increased emphasis on measurement and metrics in the nonprofit world?Is there a danger that external metrics reinforce the tendency for nonprofits to see themselves as accountable to regulators, funders or donors, rather than to their recipients?Do rankings and ratings lead to a greater degree of homogeneity in the nonprofit world? Is the desire to have metrics that can be applied equally to all CSOs regardless of cause area fundamentally misguided?If there are elements of value in the work of civil society that we cannot capture in any of our current measurement systems, do we need to find better ways of measuring, or give up on the idea that everything is measurable?Has the tide turned against metrics and impact measurement in the nonprofit world in recent years? If so, why?Why have LLCs become popular among certain groups of elite donors? Should we believe the narratives about a greater desire for flexibility, or be sceptical about whether it is driven more by a desire to bypass mimimal transparency and accountability requirements?Do LLCs undermine the “Grand Bargain”, in which the power to influence through philanthropy is balanced by accountability to wider society? Was this Grand Bargain actually functioning in practice anyway?Related linksAaron's paper "Organizational Supererogation and theTransformation of Nonprofit Accountability"Aaron's websiteAaron's HistPhil piece "Civil society by the numbers? Nonprofits, accountability, and the creative politics of quantitative discipline"Aaron's article for Alliance (with Micah McElroy) "LLCs – Good apples from a rotten tree"Aaron's essay in the 2022 Stanford PACS Blueprint, "Counting Alone?"Philanthropisms podcast with Michael Thatcher of CharityNavigatorWPM article on the history of attempts to count charitable giving

Send us a textIn this episode, we talk to Lorena Gonzalez and Jes Olvera from the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights about their work supporting unaccompanied child migrants in the US, and what it means to put justice at the heart of their approach to philanthropy. Including:What is the current landscape of philanthropic funding for immigrant rights like in the US?The issue of immigration is highly politicised (especially in the US), so when working as a funder in this field do you try to depoliticise it, or accept the reality that it will inevitably be seen through a political lens and work accordingly?Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them?Can “funder ego” or “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?Is this a particular problem when working with children, because there is a natural tendency to act in a paternalistic way towards them and want to “save” them?What happens when there is also a racial element to this power dynamic?How can funders overcome any concerns they might have about the perceived risks of shifting power into the hands of young immigrants?What is Community-Centric Fundraising, and why has the Young Center adopted these principles in its work?Why is core-cost and multi-year funding so important when supporting movements and grassroots orgs?Does a focus on justice and solidarity require taking a different approach to philanthropy? What does this mean in practice?Does viewing things through the lens of justice change the nature of the relationship between funders and recipients? (I.e., they are no longer “beneficiaries” in receipt of a “gift”, but rather able to make justice-based claims for things they are due by rights).Do we need to measure impact in social change or social justice philanthropy? If so, how can we do it in a way that helps rather than harms grantees?Related links:The Young Center’s website and blogLorena and Jes’s guest article for Why Philanthropy Matters, “Solidarity NOT Charity – What it means to be a funder in solidarity with immigrant communities”Sign up for the Young Center’s upcoming free online event with author Isabel AllendeSign up for the Young Center's upcoming Waymakers Race, Walk, Roll fundraising event (September 15-October 1)Understanding White Supremacy CultureVolunteer as a child advocateThe Principles of Community-Centric FundraisingPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Martha AwojobiPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Sara Slaughter and Derek MitchellPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Derek Bardowell

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Martha Awojobi, Founder/CEO of JMB Consulting about the upcoming BAMEOnline conference and about what it means to bring the principles of anti-racism to bear on philanthropy, charity & fundraising. Including: How did the BAMEOnline conference come about, who is it for, and why is it needed?Does philanthropy and the charity sector have a diversity problem?What does it mean for organisations in the charity and philanthropy world, and those working in them, to be anti-racist? Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issues that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits?Is the momentum we saw following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 being maintained, or are racial justice efforts already stalling? Can “funder ego” or a “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?Does prioritisation of certain kinds of knowledge act as a barrier? How is this reflected in grant application processes, funding decisions etc?Does the success of XR, BLM and other “new power” organisations suggest that there is untapped appetite for participation and power sharing? Does the ability of social movements to be more overtly political, or to employ more challenging tactics (e.g. protest, direct action), give them an advantage over civil society organisations (CSOs) that might be more constrained by legal/regulatory requirements?What role can storytelling and the creative arts play in allowing us to imagine different ways of doing things?What is needed to get more of this in civil society and the charity sector?Why is it important to understand the historic roots of the wealth, institutions and practices we have in philanthropy?What should philanthropic orgs do about links to historic racial injustices? Is it enough to acknowledge them, or do they need to go beyond that and seek means to make reparations somehow?Is philanthropy a reflection of the “circumstances of economic injustice” that Dr Martin Luther King identified, and therefore too often part of the problem? How can we make it be part of the solution?Links:BAME Online 2023JMB ConsultingCivil Society, "EDI strategies are a ‘waste of money’, says charity consultant"Martha writing in Third Sector, "It will take courage, ambition and sacrifice to dismantle white supremacy in the charity sector".Martha as a guest on the Starts At The Top podcast and on the Charity Impact podcastPhilanthropisms episode with Jake Ferguson & Vanessa Thomas from Baobab FoundationPhilanthropisms episode with Derek Bardowell.Philanthropisms Episode with Edgar Villanueva.

Send us a textIn this episode we hear from three academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused Research Notes from the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP). We have:Claire van Teunenbroek from the University of Twente in the Netherlands, talking about her work on crowdfunding and philanthropyTobias Jung from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, talking about his paper on how the concept of spectrality can be applied to further our understanding of philanthropyFiona Fairbairn of the University of Kent, talking about her paper on charity galas and whether they are still relevant.Related LinksERNOP Research Notes The ERNOP research note for Claire's paper: "What is key for crowdfunding success and how can we explain it?"Claire's paper (with Carolina Dall Chiesa & Laura Hesse) "The contribution of crowdfunding for philanthropy:A systematic review and framework of donation and reward crowdfunding"Tobias's paper (with Kevin Orr) "What lies beneath? Spectrality as a focal phenomenon and a focal theory for strengthening engagement with philanthropic foundations"Fiona's paper, "Are charity galas still relevant? An examination of generational differences in attitudes towards gala fundraising events"Claire's personal websiteTobias's profile page at St Andrews

Send us a textIn this episode we take a deep dive into the opportunities and challenges that artificial intelligence might bring for philanthropy and civil society. Including:Why is everyone talking about AI all of a sudden?What do we actually mean by "AI"?How much of the talk about "AI For Good" is substantive, and how much is hype?What are some of the best examples of nonprofits/funders currently making use of AI?What impact will the emergence of new AI capabilites around process automation, image recognition, natural language processing, content generation etc have on the way that nonprofits work?What are the risks of "naive automation"? Why should make sure that there are still "humans in the loop"?How do we guard against the risk of systems like ChatGPT providing false or inaccurate information?What lessons can we learn from recent examples of nonprofits using ChatGPT and generative AI badly?How will AI affect the wider financial and regulatory environment for CSOs?What impact will AI, in the form of recommender algorithms, have on the ways in which we make choices about where and how to give?Could we see the emergence of fully automated "philgorithms"?How can nonprofits combat the risks of algorithmic bias, both in terms of how it affects them and the people/communities they serve?What role can nonprofits play in addressing AI-driven misinformation & disinformation?What role does civil society have to play in exploring new visions for a "post-work" future?Should we take warnings of existential risks from AI seriously? If so, what does this mean for philanthropy?What role should funders/CSOs play in highlighting the potential harms of AI? What barriers prevent them from doing this at present?Related Links:WPM guide to  philanthropy and AI Rhod's piece for NPC's 20th anniversary essay collection, "Would AI be good or bad for philanthropy? Will AI replace grant-makers?"NPC's recent event "AI in the charity sector: getting past the hype", where Rhod was a panellist alongside Tania Duarte of We And AI and Tris Lumley of NPCRhod's Alliance article "Artificial intelligence is coming for philanthropy"Philanthropisms podcast 2023 Predictions episodePhilanthropisms podcast episode on the Platformisation of Philanthropy

Send us a textOn this episode, we talk to philosopher and lawyer Patricia Illingworth about her recent book Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All, and about how we can apply the framework of human rights to some of the big questions about the nature and role of philanthropy. Including:What does it mean to use human rights as a framework for understanding donor responsibilities?Is philanthropy a choice or a duty?Do human rights responsibilities apply to all philanthropy, or just a certain portion of it? If a donor has given substantially to rights-furthering causes, is it acceptable for them to give additionally in a different way?Would an idealized world still contain philanthropy, or would it be one in which all philanthropy was unnecessary? If there was still some philanthropy in an idealized world, what kind would it be? Is the rise of “purpose-driven business” and “compassionate capitalism” something we should welcome or be sceptical about?Should nonprofits always reject tainted donations, or is it possible to “turn bad money into good”?Can a human rights lens help us to determine whether source of wealth are tainted, and what course of action we should take? In cases where wealth itself isn’t tainted through its mode of creation, but the donor may be ethically problematic, is it more or less acceptable to take the money?What is “moral self-licensing” and why does it provide a basis for thinking that nonprofits should not accept untainted money from tainted donors? Do charities or funders that make use of “poverty porn” infringe on the human rights of recipients? What does this mean for nonprofit fundraising?Can philanthropy be used to strengthen democracy, or is it inherently anti-democratic? How can a human rights lens help us to determine when philanthropy is acting positively even though it is running counter to democracy?Why is a philosophical perspective on philanthropy valuable/important? Related Links:Patricia's book Giving NowExcerpt in SSIR, "Tackling Moral Self-Licensing"Patricia's personal websitePhilanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donationsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on combining profit & purposePhilanthropisms podcast episode with Emma Saunders-HastingsPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Ben SoskisWPM article on Patagonia and nonprofit corporate ownershipWPM guide to tainted donations

Send us a textIn this episode we take a deep dive into an issue that has been generating a lot of debate recently: is pluralism in philanthropy a good thing, or not? Including:What has caused the latest furore, and what has the reaction been?Is philanthropic freedom genuinely under threat, and if so why? Or is this just a straw man?Should donors and foundations be free to "engage in the unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests and prerogatives", or are there arguments for constraining this freedom?Is there an inherent tension in philanthropy between individual liberty and systemic equity? How can we balance these competing demands?Should we value pluralism because it enables diversity of thought and values, and provides the material for a healthy "battle of ideas" that can strengthen democracy? Is pluralism a necessary part of allowing marginalised groups and communities to overcome the "tyranny of the majority" and drive social change?Is accepting that civil society will contain things we may not like or agree with the necessary cost of pluralism? Is this a price worth paying?Is pluralism a noble idea in theory but naive in practice, when in reality power is skewed towards defence of the status quo and vested interests?Can everyday giving help to produce a form of pluralism that avoids some of the problems that come when we rely on elite philanthropy?Do we need to constrain pluralism, and if so how?To what extent is this a US-specific debate?Do nonprofits need to be "civil" or "polite" when they disagree? Or does this ignore the historical reality of social change?Related linksThe letter to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that has sparked this debate, "We Disagree on Many Things, but We Speak With One Voice in Support of Philanthropic Pluralism"Vu Le, "Philanthropy’s equivalent of “All Lives Matter”"Edgar Villanueva, "Debunking the Myth of Philanthropic Pluralism"Phil Buchanan, "Who Is Threatening ‘Philanthropic Freedom?’"Philip Rojc, "The End of Philanthropic History and that Pluralism Op-Ed"Philanthropisms podcast with Edgar VillanuevaPhilanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-HastingsWhy Philanthropy Matters article, "Voluntary Woke? Philanthropy, Civil Society & The Culture Wars"Rhod's article for Beacon Collaborative, "Can we agree to disagree when it comes to philanthropy?"Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell verdict in "Bob Jones University vs United States"JS  Mill, "

Send us a textIn this episode we take a look at the long history of the relationship between philanthropy and music. Including:Philanthropy supporting musicPatronage & philanthropyWho gets to decide which music count as "art"?How did Victorian paternalism tie in with the promotion of music?How and when did the state come to accept responsibility for funding music?Musicians as PhilanthropistsHow does the fact that many musicians come from relatively modest or poor backgrounds inform their giving?Celebrity musician philanthropy: from Jenny Lind to John LegendThe history of charity fundraising concertsPhilanthropy in MusicAre there any good songs about philanthropy?Related LinksRhod's article on "Marcus Rashford, Dolly Parton and public perceptions of Philanthropy"Classic FM, "Who were the great patrons of music?"Classic FM, "Seven times when great composers made some noise for charity"Drummond (1978)  "The Royal Society of Musicians in the Eighteenth Century"Uy, Michael Sy (2017) "The Big Bang of Music Patronage in the United States: The National Endowment for the Arts, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Ford Foundation". (PhD Thesis)Samples (2016) "The Humbug and the Nightingale: P. T. Barnum, Jenny Lind, and the Branding of a Star Singer for American Reception"Rolling Stone, "Prince, the Secret Philanthropist: ‘His Cause Was Humanity’"Guardian, "The philanthropic acts of George Michael: from £5k tips to nurses' gigs"Nonprofit Quarterly, "Sankofa Philanthropy: Hip Hop’s Sixth Element"BBC, "10 pop stars who donated unbelievable amounts of money"Rolling Stone, "Heal the World: 20 Songs for a Good Cause"Lee (2010)"Heeding the Call: An Historical Overview of Philanthropy in Rock"

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to philanthropist Dr Ewan Kirk, founder of the Turner Kirk Trust, about why he believes it is so important that philanthropists are willing to take risks and give the organisations they support  'permission to fail'. Including:Why is it so important to give charities permission to fail?What factors make something a “good” failure rather than a “bad” one? What is the nature of the risk in philanthropy? Is philanthropy as a whole too risk averse? Can we do anything to encourage donors/funders to take more risks and be willing to “fail”? Why is it important, in terms of giving charities the freedom to take risks, that we get away from asking them to deliver specific outcomes?Should we still try to gauge the effectiveness/success of funding?Would more unrestricted funding help to foster a culture of risk taking and innovation?When looking for genuinely transformative solutions to long-standing problems, it is necessary to support ‘upstream’ work (e.g. research, policy and advocacy) as well as ‘downstream’ work (e.g. direct interventions)? Is there sometimes a danger that philanthropists go too far in looking for “big bets” or “moonshots”, and overlook more immediate issues and potential solutions as a result?Is it necessary to rein this tendency in at all? (i.e. to set parameters for what is “acceptable risk” when it comes to deploying philanthropic resources?)If one of the potential “exits” for risk-taking philanthropists is to get the state to adopt innovations or change the way it does things, what is best way of ensuring that this happens?If philanthropy genuinely has a higher risk tolerance than the public sector, why is that?Could the state itself become more risk-tolerant, or will it always need philanthropy? Related links:The Turner Kirk TrustEwan's interview for the Beacon Collaborative on "Why donors should give charities ‘permission to fail'"Why Philanthropy Matters short guide to core cost fundingWhy Philanthropy Matters short guide to impact measurement