The Jen Gottlieb Show

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to J. Bob Alotta - SVP, Global Progammes at Mozilla - about what is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence, philanthropy and civil society. Including:What role can open source approaches play in ensuring that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What is Mozilla funding in this area, and how much other philanthropic funding is currently focussed on these kinds of initiatives?How optimistic should we be about the potential for developing open source approaches to AI at a time when there is such  huge commercial competition surrounding the technology? What will be required to make this happen?What is the aim of the new $200m Philanthropic Coalition on AI that Mozilla has joined?Why has Mozilla chosen to use the approach of funding individuals through its Fellowship program?What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible?Is the focus of some philanthropic funders and donors on the perceived existential risks of Artificial General Intelligence a distraction from the more immediate short term challenges the technology poses?What role has Effective Altruism played in making X risks the focus of philanthropic funding for AI research?What should we be focussing on as the most important immediate challenges with AI?Does the current turmoil at OpenAI suggest that trying to combine commercial drivers and philanthropic goals is a real challenge when it comes to the development of AI? Does Mozilla’s own hybrid structure have lessons for how we can do this well?Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?Do CSOs currently have the knowledge and capabilities to engage in these debates? If not, what new support and infrastructure do they need to do so (and what role can philanthropy play in achieving this?)Related Links:Mozilla FoundationMozilla FellowshipsMozilla Foundation's article, "Trustworthy AI Funding Principles: Learnings and Opportunities from Mozilla Foundation’s 4+ Years of AI Grantmaking" Philanthropisms podcast 2024 tech predictionsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on Philanthropy, Civil Society & AIWhy Philanthropy Matters article, "What will 2024 bring for philanthropy and civil society?"WPM article, "OpenAI and the challenges of combining profit with purpose"Rhodri's Alliance article, "Artificial intelligence is coming for philanthropy"

Send us a textAs is now tradition, in our final episode of the year we take a look at some of the key themes and trends in philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what the coming year might bring. In this second of two parts, we focus on the opportunities and challenges that technology will bring. Including:Will Twitter (oh, alright, "X") finally give up and die? Will we settle on a replacement? And should we even do that, or should we rethink the whole idea of social media?Will the ongoing rise of influencer philanthropy, epitomised by MrBeast, bring more criticism and more pushback?Will the emergence of generative AI and its integration into already-ubiquitous tools lead to new opportunities for nonprofits in terms of productivity, accessibility and creativity?Will we see further scandals over nonprofit use of AI-generated content?Will  legal and ethical concerns about infringement of copyright and intellectual property rights in the creation of genAI tools have any impact on their use by nonprofits?Will recommender algorithms start to reshape how people make choices about giving?Will the "boomers" vs "doomers" narrative about the future of AI become entrenched, and will this create challenges for CSOs trying to highlight more immediate AI risks?Are new AI capabilities going to turbocharge cybersecurity risks? Is there any point caring about crypto and blockchain any more?Will the metaverse develop in a meaningful way, or is the required infrastructure still lacking?Are we beginning the transition towards a radically different future of work as a result of automation? What might this mean for philanthropy and civil society?Will we see more philanthropic funders get involved in debates over population slowdown? Does this risk taking them into ethically challenging ground?RELATED LINKS:Philanthropisms episodes on "philanthropy, civil society & AI" and "cryptophilanthropy: boom or bust?"WPM article on the chaos at OpenAIWPM article on MrBeast and PhilanthropyRhodri on The Bunker podcast discussing MrBeastWPM article on philanthropy, population debates and eugenicsRhodri's Alliance article "Artificial Intelligence is coming for philanthropy"WPM article on philanthropy and the metaverse

In this podcast, the hosts discuss predictions for philanthropy in 2024, including the impact of a global economic slowdown and elections, the decline in overall giving, and the need to rethink fundraising strategies. They explore the evolving landscape of philanthropy, touching on the ethical dilemmas of supporting conflicting causes and the rise of spirituality in giving. The podcast also delves into ongoing criticisms of philanthropy, the tension between donor and recipient organizations, and various trends and challenges in the charity sector.

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Dr Farahnaz Karim, Founder & CEO of Insaan Group, about catalytic philanthropy, impact investing and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Including:What does Insaan Group do, and how did the organisation come about?What does the current impact investing market landscape look like? Where is the money coming from, and where is it going?How do we ensure that the focus on social, as well as financial, returns is maintained in impact investing?Is it appropriate to use philanthropic grant money as "first loss" capital to lower the risk of impact investments and make them more appealing?Has the emergence of impact investing increased the overall volume of resources aimed at social good, or is there a danger it is "cannibalising" money that might otherwise have been  given as traditional donations?What is the role of government in relation to impact investing and philanthropy?Are social enterprise models a good way of developing trust in places where levels of trust in traditional philanthropy/NGOs are low?Can investment-type relationships be more empowering for those on the receiving end than gift-type relationships?Are the SDGs broadly focussed on the right things, or are there obvious gaps?Is the appeal of the SDGs partly pragmatic i.e. that even if they are not perfect, they represent a widely-understood and agreed framework for prioritisation and measurement?Is it a challenge for the SDGs that they are so huge in scale it can be difficult for individual organisations to relate them to their work? When it comes to impact measurement, do we need to balance quantitative data with qualitative data?Can technology play a role in making it easier to capture qualitative data? Related links:Insaan GroupFarahnaz's recent piece for Alliance, "Rethinking governance in philanthropy: where is the forgotten stakeholder?"Farahnaz's article for CircleMENA, "Towards the next paradigm shift in philanthropy" Farahnaz's 2022 Alliance piece, "Village to global village: Making sense of impact, ESG, and other ‘good’ ideas"Farahnaz's 2021 Alliance piece, "The nature of capital and other threats to impact""Insaan – the Future of Philanthropy?" in Frank magazinePhilanthropisms podcast episodes with Sadaf Shallwani, Cassie Robinson and Aaron HorvathWPM short guide to measuring impact.

Send us a textIn this episode we speak to Elizabeth Barajas-Román, President & CEO of the Women's Funding Network, about taking a feminist approach to funding and what more philanthropy should be doing to drive gender equity. Including:What does it mean to be a feminist funder?Is feminist funding just for those who are interested in gender and women's issues, or can the principles be applied by funders in other areas?What are the similarities and the differences in terms of the context for gender equity issues across different geographic regions?How important is it to take an intersectional approach when funding gender issues? Is it ever a challenge to balance specificity in focusing on the particular needs of intersectional groups against the desire to address gender-based issues more broadly? Or can the two be mutually reinforcing?How important is the rise of women as donors (individually, or using collective models) for ensuring the growth of gender equity funding?What impact has the US Supreme Court's decision to roll back the abortion rights in Roe v Wade had on the landscape for gender equity and women's philanthropy in the US?Has it had an impact on gender equity and women's rights orgs work in other countries too?Does the rollback of Roe vs Wade suggest that philanthropic funders in the US were complacent about the need to defend previously won freedoms? Does it suggest that gender issues were not taken seriously enough?Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them? Is this a particular problem for women’s organisations? Is there a risk that funders can co-opt social movements or grassroots orgs, by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics?Do participatory approaches come more naturally to orgs with roots in the history of feminism and women's rights? What can other funders learn from them?Related linksWomen's Funding NetworkWFN's "Time is Now" pledgeElizabeth's article for Chronicle of Philanthropy (with Saida Agostini-Bostic,  president of Funders for LGBTQ Issues), "The Onslaught of Anti-Trans Legislation Demands a Crisis Response From Philanthropy"Elizabeth's piece for Candid, "How gender justice funders are taking historic action on policy".Elizabeth's pieces for Alliance, "The equitable way forward: giving circles" and "This Black history month, give where it counts".Elizabeth's SSIR article, "Women’s Funds After the Pandemic"Philanthropisms podcast with Sara Lomelin, Philanthropy TogetherPhilanthropisms podcast with L

Send us a textIn this episode we speak to Sara Lomelin, founding CEO of Philanthropy Together, about the rise of giving circles and the intersection between philanthropy, community and identity. Including:How did Philanthropy Together come about, and what is the organisation's mission?Who gets involved in giving circles? Are they different from"typical donors"?Do collective giving models appeal more to younger donors?What different approaches to giving circles take to decision-making?Are there models of collective giving that bring recipients into the decision making process as well as donors?How much collective giving takes place through long-term giving circles, and how much is through shorter-term “pop-up” collaborations? Is it possible to combine the strengths of both of these approaches?Are giving circles more likely to give to smaller grassroots orgs that might be perceived as "risky" by institutional funders?Can collective giving models help to make philanthropy more justice-focussed? Can collective giving help to build a sense of shared identity, or does it rely on there being a pre-existing sense of identity around which a group can be formed?  How do identity-based groups accommodate intersectional identities?Does collective giving build social capital? If so, is it merely “bonding” social capital or also “bridging”?The internet allows us to form communities of interest, identity or purpose that are not tied to geographic boundaries- in this context, is there still a meaningful relationship between ‘place’ and ‘community’? How can we learn more effectively from other cultures of giving where collective or horizontal models are more common?What is the relationship between collective giving and mutual aid? Is it more common to see a focus on notions such as solidarity when people are giving collectively?Do collective giving models address some of the concerns about the potentially anti-democratic nature of elite philanthropy?Should elite philanthropy fund collective giving models in recognition of their unique value? Or should elite philanthropists adopt practices and insights from collective giving? Related Links:Philanthropy TogetherHali Lee's article on "Cultures of Generosity and Philanthropy Within Communities of Color"Sara's talk at the 2022 TED conference, "Your invitation to disrupt philanthropy"Sara's 2021 article with Asha Curran in Ms magazineSara's Alliance magazine article with Isis Krause on "The future of collective giving and what’s next for Philanthropy Together"Philanthropisms podcast with Mihaela GiurgiuWPM article on the 2023 Gates Foundation Greater Giving SummitWPM article on the language we use to talk about philanthropy

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to Joshua Amponsem, co-founder and Strategy Director of the  Youth Climate Justice Fund, a newly-formed organisation that aims to support youth-led climate movements with trust-based funding, resources and youth-to-youth development. We discuss: How did YCJF come about? What is the organisation's mission and what does it aim to do?Why is so little philanthropy currently aimed at climate issues? Why is only a tiny fraction of that funding aimed at youth-led climate justice? (Despite the obvious success of youth climate leaders in putting these issues on the agenda).Do we need to stop seeing climate as a “cause area” and see it instead as a cross-cutting issue that affects all funders and civil society orgs?What do youth-led climate movements need apart from money? (e.g. leadership training & support, physical protection).Youth climate movements and activists are often using tactics that traditional nonprofits would shy away from, such as direct action or strategic litigation. Does this present a challenge or an opportunity when it comes to convincing funders to support them?Is the goal of YCJF to reduce the risk for funders of supporting youth-led climate movements and activists, or to get funders to accept and be comfortable with those risks?Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently skew the direction of movements by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and what not to fund? How can we avoid this risk?How can we ensure that power and decision making within philanthropy is shifted towards the people and communities who would have been seen as the traditional ‘beneficiaries’? Why is this particularly important for youth-led movements?How is YCJF using participatory methods in its decision-making? What are the strengths of doing so? (And does it also bring challenges?)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?Are there some sources of funding that present particular practical and ethical challenges for climate movements (e.g. money from the fossil fuel industry etc). Is it possible for movements to accept money from these sources without damaging their own legitimacy? If so, what does this require?Related links:Youth Climate Justice Fund websiteRead the Youth Climate Justice StudyJoshua's recent Alliance magazine piece (with Nathan Méténier), "More power to youth: Doing climate philanthropy differently"Profile of YCJF in Inside Philanthropy (£) Philanthropisms podcast with Lorena Gonzalez & Jes OlveraWPM short guides to core cost funding and impact measurement

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