Philanthropisms

Send us a textIn this episode Rhod talks to philanthropy adviser Emma Beeston and academic Dr Beth Breeze about their new book Advising Philanthropists. Including:What are some of the key elements of philanthropy advice?How much is philanthropy advice about objective, technical things (e.g. tax, structures etc) and how much is it about subjective things (about finding purpose, understanding values etc)?At what stage in their ‘philanthropic journey’ are donors most likely to seek advice?Where do donors tend to get philanthropy advice from? What impact does the source of the advice have on the nature of the advice?Is philanthropy advice normally a one-off or time limited service, or an ongoing relationship?To what extent do advisers see their role as neutral agents servicing the demands of donors vs active agents challenging them/shaping their approach? What factors make for a successful donor/adviser relationship?What does “success” look like for a philanthropy adviser? (i.e. more giving, ‘better giving’, both?)What are some of the biggest challenges/frustrations for philanthropy advisers? How common is it for private banks/wealth management firms to offer philanthropy advice? When they do, is this seen as a business proposition (i.e. by increasing client retention, strengthening relationships etc), or part of the company’s social responsibility?What are the core skills you need to be a philanthropy adviser?What is the relationship like between philanthropy advisers and fundraisers? Do the latter see the former as useful points of contact with wealthy donors, or unhelpful gatekeepers?What role can philanthropy advisers play in helping to manage the transfer of wealth between generations?Are there any signs that next gen donors are more or less willing to seek advice on their giving?Are next gen donors looking for the same kind of advice as previous generations or different kinds?How much power do advisers have to shape donor’s giving?Does this bring responsibilities (e.g. to be transparent about who they are, and what role they play?)How many advisers see it as part of their role to make donors aware of critiques of philanthropy and offer them ways of addressing them?Related Links:Emma and Beth's book Advising PhilanthropistsThe University of Kent Centre for Philanthropy Masters in Philanthropic Studies (where, if you enrol, you can get taught by Beth, Emma and me!)Beth's book In Defence of PhilanthropyEmma's websiteEmma on the Charity Impact Podcast with Alex BlakeEmma and Beth's guest article for Inside Philanthropy "Lifting the Curtain on Philanthropy Advising"Emma's blog for DSC, "Shedding some light on philanthropy advising"Rhod's WPM article "You’re the Philanthropist Now!: A roll-your-own adventure"

Send us a textOn this episode, as part of our occasional mini-series in partnership with NPC, we talk to Tris Lumley about open philanthropy: what it is, why it is important, and how we make it happen. Including:What is NPC’s Open Philanthropy project? How did it come about?How has NPC been putting some of its thinking about open philanthropy into practice?What is the difference between “outward openness” and “inward openness” in philanthropy?Do foundations (and donors) need to be more transparent? If so, why? (Is this primarily about making philanthropy more legitimate, or more effective/efficient?)What do they need to be open about? (e.g. income, spending, diversity of staff/trustees, how decisions are made etc).How can we make use of open data in philanthropy?Why might some funders be reluctant to be more open? Is this ever justified?Does philanthropy need to get better at valuing different forms of knowledge? How do you balance the value of experience and the value of expertise?Are there challenges for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?What does the focus on inclusion mean for our approaches to measurement?How important is core-cost and multi-year funding when it comes to making philanthropy more inwardly open?Is trust-based philanthropy more open (i.e. because it asks less of grantees in terms of reporting etc), or more closed (i.e. because it relies on developing trusting relationships and can therefore become cliquey)?Related LinksNPC's Open Philanthropy projectWhy Philanthropy Matters guides to Core Cost Funding and Measuring Impact.Philanthropisms podcast episodes with Angela Kail and Dan Corry from NPC.Philanthropisms podcast episode with Sadaf Shallwani.

Send us a textIn this episode we talk to historian and political scientist Claire Dunning about her book Nonprofit Neighborhoods: An urban history of inequality and the American state, and her work on the history of radical philanthropy in Boston. Including:-What are the “nonprofit neighborhoods” described in the book?-Can participation in nonprofits become an alternative to involvement in the mainstream structures of civic participation, rather than a route into them? Does this undermine the Tocquevillean ideal of voluntary associations as “nurseries of democracy”? -Is there any danger that in becoming partners with/agents for the state, nonprofits undermine their own ability to speak out? Is this due to active stipulation by state funders, or more through self-censorship by nonprofits?-Have government efforts to involve nonprofits been driven in part by a desire to bypass the scepticism that might otherwise have been aimed at big government-delivered welfare and social reform programmes? -To what extent was the involvement of nonprofits in programmes like the War on Poverty designed centrally (i.e. by Washington policymakers) and how much was a result of local implementation?-What does the history of FUND (Fund for Urban Negro Development) and BUFF (Boston Black United Front Foundation) tell us about the challenges of trying to use philanthropy to address deep-seated issues of racial inequality?-Is it ever possible to have truly “no strings attached “ giving, or are there always hidden strings?-What can history tell us about the risk that foundations and other funders co-opt social movements by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics?-What can the FUND/BUFF example tell us about current debates between donor-centric and community-centric fundraising? -What value can a historical perspective can bring to philanthropists, funders and non-profit professionals?-Are there limits to the utility of historical comparison in understanding the present? What should we take into account or be aware of?-What is the value of historical edge cases? Related Links:Claire's book Nonprofit NeighborhoodsClaire's article in Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, " No Strings Attached: Philanthropy, Race, and Donor Control From Black Power to Black Lives Matter" (currently open access).Claire's 2018 paper "Outsourcing Government: Boston and the Rise of Public–Private Partnerships"Philanthropisms podcast with Emma Saunders-HastingsPhilanthropisms podcast with Tyrone McKinley FreemanPhilanthropisms podcast with Maribel MoreyWhy Philanthropy Matters guide to philanthropy & the welfare state

Send us a textIn this episode Rhod talks to Jake Ferguson and Vanessa Thomas, two of the Committee members of the Baobab Foundation - a new member-led endowed grantmaker that is seeking to address issues of systemic racism and intersectional injustice in the UK. Including:How did the Baobab Foundation come about? What has been the progress so far?Has the momentum behind addressing issues of racial justice that we saw in the nonprofit world following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 been maintained?Why have Black and minority-led organisations historically lost out when it comes to philanthropic funding?How is Baobab foundation trying to shift power to those who would traditionally have been seen as the recipients of philanthropy?Why has Baobab decided not to adopt a traditional charitable structure?How is Baobab trying to influence the way other funders work?Does the philanthropy sector in the UK have a diversity problem?Can Baobab play a longer-term role in offering a route into grantmaking for more people from Black and minority communities?Why is building an endowment such an important aim of Baobab?Can Baobab play a useful role as an intermediary in overcoming some of the barriers in relationships between more traditional/risk-averse funders and grassroots organisations/social movements?Are there challenges in trying to bring together different types of knowledge (e.g. lived experience and professional expertise)? How do you navigate these?Why was it important for Baobab to adopt a horizonatal, non-hierarchical structure?How can measurement be a useful tool for organisations that receive funding, and not just a means to reinforce the dominance of the funder?How can donors, funders and CSOs get involved with Baobab Foundation?Related Links:Baobab FoundationPhilanthropisms podcast with Sara Slaughter and Derek MitchellPhilanthropisms podcast with Derek BardowellPhilanthropisms podcast with Sadaf ShallwaniWPM article on charities and politics

Send us a textIn this episode we take a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and business. Commercial ventures have always played a key role in generating wealth for people to give away through philanthropy, but is there more to it than that? And what are the promises and pitfalls of trying to combine profit with purpose? Including:Does philanthropy need to be "more business-like"? What does this actually mean, and why has the idea  continued to be so influential?What can the history of fundraising show us about how charities have sometimes pioneered new commercial techniques?What sort of template do the Quaker business leaders of the C19th offer for how we can combine business with philanthropy?Why have marginalised communities often led the way in blurring the lines between commerce and philanthropy?Why did Milton Friedman object so strongly to the idea that businesses have social responsibilities, and how influential have his ideas been?Does the emergence of new corporate forms such as the B Corp suggest a new golden age of combining profit and purpose?Should we be wary of the claims of tech company owners that their commercial ventures produce more social good than traditional philanthropy?Will Yvonne Chouinard's decision to hand Patagonia over to non-profit ownership start a new trend among business-owner philanthropists?What can history and global context tell us about the pros and cons of non-profit business ownership?The surprisingly long history of social finance: what can Pliny the Younger's land deals, the collapse of the C18th Charitable Corporation and C19th scepticism about Octavia Hill's affordable housing plans tell us about the good and potential bad of impact investing today?Related LinksWhy Philanthropy Matters Guide to the history of philanthropy and businessWPM article "The Business of Philanthropy: Patagonia and non-profit corporate ownership"Roddy, Strange & Taithe (2018) "The Charity Market and Humanitarianism in Britain, 1870–1912" (Open Access online version)Milton Friedman's 1970 NY Times article: "The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits"Philliteracy Twitter thread on the history of social investmentPhilanthropisms podcast with Tyrone McKinley FreemanBrealey (2013) "The Charitable Corporation for the Relief of Industrious Poor: Philanthropy, Profit and Sleaze in London, 1707–1733" (£ Paywall)

Send us a textIn our last episode of the year, we take a look at some of the key issues and trends affecting philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what to watch out for in 2023. Including: The impact of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and possible recession on philanthropy, everyday giving and the work of charities.Polarisation and political division making it harder for philanthropy to engage constructively with criticism and the need for change. More mainstream media focus on philanthropy. (And therefore more scepticism and critique?)More big donors supporting efforts to develop everyday giving.A new generation of celebrities (Youtubers, sports stars etc) reclaiming the word “philanthropy” for themselves? What impact might this have on wider perceptions of philanthropy?More ultra-wealthy people make public pledges to give the majority of their wealth away. Blurring the lines between individual and corporate philanthropy more than everOngoing tensions between “strategic” and “trust-based” philanthropy.More donors and funders experimenting with models that enable them to shift power as well as money e.g. participatory methods, funding grassroots movements etc.Debates about balancing urgency and patience in philanthropy.Division in the Effective Altruism movement  in the wake of Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall?Tainted donations: will more organisations reject ‘bad money’, or will they try to find ways of justifying taking it in light of pressures on finances?The balkanisation of social media in the wake of Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover.Is cryptophilanthropy dead in the water?Will nonprofits start to make use of new generative AI tools like Chat-GPT? What new possibilities and challenges will these bring?Will layoffs and restructuring across many tech companies open up an opportunity for nonprofits to recruit new talent and skills? Related LinksPhilanthropisms episode on the downfall of Sam Bankman-FriedDylan Matthew's Vox piece "How effective altruism let Sam Bankman-Fried happen"WPM Nov 2022 newsletterPhilanthropisms episode on the Cost-of-Living Crisis (with Angela Kail from NPC) Philanthropisms episode on platform philanthropyWPM article on Yvon Chouinard and PatagoniaWPM article on charities, campaigning and politics WPM article on Effective AltruismWPM article on Blackbaud and the NRARhod’s piece for NPC about AI and grantmaking

Send us a textIn this episode we take a look at a few of the biggest stories from what has been a notable newsworthy couple of weeks for philanthropy - focusing on the fallout from the spectacular implosion of crypto billionaire and high profile Effective Altruist Sam Bank-Fried. We also take a look at a big philanthropy pledge from Jeff Bezos and the latest on Mackenzie Scott's radical no-strings-attached big giving. Including:SBF:What the hell has happened in the SBF story?What impact might this have on wider efforts to promote the idea of cryptophilanthropy?Will SBF's downfall lead to further calls to clamp down on big money donations in politics, given his prominent support for the Democracts in recent years?Is it likely to mean more skepticism about philanthropic funding for journalism, given that some feel SBF's significant donations to news outlets led to him receiving less critical coverage?Does his downfall present an existential crisis for Effective Altruism (EA)?Should we distinguish between different ways of understanding EA: EA-as-movement, EA-as-ideology, EA-as-academic-field? What is the likely impact  on each of these?Do EA movement leaders have questions to answer about whether they were complicit in what was going on at FTX, or just naive? And what are the ramifications of either?Did SBF's EA beliefs lead him to adopt a radical "end justifies the means" view that allowed him to justify bad behaviour?Is this situation a killer blow for EA's "give to earn" idea?Scott & BezosHow excited should we be about pledges to give big in the future?What details do we have about what Bezos is actually planning to do?Why does the idea that "giving money away is hard" have such a long history? How is Mackenzie Scott challenging this idea?How should we understand "effectiveness" when it comes to philanthropy?Why has Bezos given $100m to Dolly Parton...?Related ContentRhod's Alliance Magazine piece, "Effectively over: What Does Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall mean for philanthropy and Effective Altruism?"Vox, "Effective altruism gave rise to Sam Bankman-Fried. Now it’s facing a moral reckoning".SBF's ill-advised interview with Vox's Kelsey PiperEvan Huber's EA Forum post, "We must be very clear: fraud in the service of effective altruism is unacceptable"Why Philanthropy Matters article, "Why Am I Not an Effective Altruist?" Philanthropisms podcast on cryptophilanthropyPhilanthropisms podcast on the philosophy of philanthropyRhod's piece on "Marcus Rashford, Dolly Parton and public perceptions of Philanthropy"

Send us a textIn this episode, Rhodri talks to Sara Slaughter, Executive Director of the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation, and Derek Mitchell, CEO of Partners in Schools Innovation about their relationship as funder and grantee, and how they have worked together to move towards to a new focus on equity and justice. Including:How and why has Stone Foundation changed the way it does grantee convenings? What do they get out of it as a funder, and what do grantees get out of it?How difficult is it as a funder to convene without being directive?Do we need to shed some of the technocratic language that tends to dominate philanthropic funding?What is “radical humility” and why should funders embrace it?Do we need to redefine what counts as success and failure in grantmaking?Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issue that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits? What does this mean in practice?In trying to convince philanthropic funders of the need to shift power is it better to make a moral case (i.e., that they should do it because it is “the right thing to do”) or a practical one (i.e., that it will make them more effective as grantmakers)?Are there challenges for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?How do you balance the value of experience and the value of expertise?Is the process of giving power away uncomfortable by necessity?Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently distort the work of their grantees by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and how to fund it? How can funders check their own power and thus avoid this risk?Is it always best to shift power? Or are there situations where funders should “lean into their power”, because they are better placed to undertake advocacy or influencing?How important is physical proximity in making trust-based relationships work? How can funders and grantees manage the tension between urgency and patience?Is philanthropy a reflection of those “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?Related ContentSara and Derek’s comment piece for Philanthropy News Digest, “Building trust with grantees with ‘radical humility’”Grantmakers for Education’s case study on W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone’s grantee convenings, “Equity as a Verb” W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation websitePartners in Schools Innovation websitePhilanthropisms podcast with Sadaf ShallwaniPhilanthropism Podcast with Derek BardowellWhy Philanthropy Matters guides on core-cost funding, measuring impact, and short vs long-

Send us a textIn this episode we explore whether it is always necessary to say thank you for a philanthropic gift, whether it might sometimes be problematic, and the implications of how we choose to recognise donations. Including:If we view  philanthropy as a duty of justice, rather than a charitable choice, does that mean we have a right to expect it and therefore don't need to be grateful?Does this apply to all philanthropy, or only to certain cause areas (e.g. inequality and poverty?)Is it just a pragmatic reality that we need to express gratitude to donors in order to keep them giving? Or does this sacrifice important principles? How does this relate to the debate over "donor-centric" vs "community-cnetric" approaches to fundraising?If a donor expects or demands gratitude for their gift, does this become a problem? (And conversely, if the thanks is freely given is that OK?)How has the expectation of gratitude historically been used as a tool of social control?Is it appropriate to show thanks to an everyday donor giving a small gift? If so, is it paradoxical to argue that we should show less gratitude to a major philanthropic donor?If donor/recipient relationships are more equal (e.g. as within mutual aid traditions) is it OK to show, or expect, gratitude then?Is it possible to have mutual gratitude even within uneqaul funder/recipient relationships?What can history and anthropology tell us about the relationship between giving, reciprocity and gratitude?Is an expectation that a recipient of a gift should reciprocate in kind better than an expectation of gratitude? Does this rule out gifts where there is no realistic prospect of reciprocating?What is the history of commemoration in the form of statues, plaques and naming rights?Does this represent a problematic institutionalization of expectations of gratitude, or is it a natural response to a generous gift (and a crucial fundraising tool?)RELATED LINKS:Philanthropisms podcast episode with Emma Saunders-HastingsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on tainted donationsPhilanthropisms podcast episode on the philosophy of philanthropyPhilanthropisms podcast episode with Ben SoskisJane Addams, "A Modern Lear"Video for "Charity" by Skunk AnansieEmile Beneviste, "Giving and Taking in Indo-European Society"Spencer Jordan's PhD thesis on Edward Colston:  "The development and implementation of authority in a regional capital : a study of Bristol's elites, 1835-1939"Philliteracy Twitter thread on the history of commemorating donors

Send us a textIn this episode, Rhod talks to Martha Lackritz-Peltier, General Counsel of nonprofit technology specialist TechSoup, about using tech to overcome some of the barriers to cross-border giving and the localization of international development. Including:What is the UN’s Grand Bargain? Why is this important?Why has it not been delivered on so far?Where does the reluctance of INGOs to cede control to local CSOs come from?Lack of trust/fear of fraud & mismanagement? Unwillingness to relinquish power? Force of habit?Not knowing how to do it?How does NGO Source aim to address this problem?Are the biggest challenges in gathering and providing data on NGO equivalency technical, political or cultural?How do funders and grantees use this data?What steps need to be taken to protect NGO data and make sure it is not mis-used?What responsibilities do platforms bear for the choice of which organisations do and don’t make it onto their lists? What are the key barriers to making a platform like NGO Source work at scale? (i.e. political/regulatory issues, buy-in from funders, buy-in from recipient orgs, technological challenges?)Are governments (in the US and elsewhere) actually keen to encourage and facilitate cross-border giving (given that it often results in reduced tax take in their own countries for benefits produced elsewhere)? #What is the most compelling argument for why governments should support cross-border giving?What barriers do international financial regulations (AML, CTF, sanctions etc) present to cross-border giving?Is there a danger that through supra-national bodies like FATCA, the US ends up imposing its own views and values on the rest of the world when it comes to philanthropy and civil society?What should we make of the promises of various new and emerging technologies (e.g. AI, blockchain etc) to “revolutionise” international development and cross-border giving?Is there a danger that technological solutions risk leaving behind smaller CSOs and grassroots organisations? Related LinksTechSoup's websiteNGOSource on TwitterMartha's article on "Due Diligence in an Increasingly Remote World"Philanthropisms podcast with Sadaf Shallwani from Firelight FoundationPhilanthropisms podcast on "The Platformisation of Philanthropy"Philanthropisms podcast on "Cryptophilanthropy: Boom or Bust?"