It feels, at least from where I sit, that everything comes back to community.

Those groups that hold you, support you, advocate for you. Yet, a community needs room to pulse, to evolve, to tackle conflict. It needs the opportunity to develop new and better ways forward.

A community naturally comprises multiple identities; it’s those differences, combined with common values, that create discussion and the potential for shared progression.

“You need to know the rules to break them.”

We use frameworks and roadmaps within the philanthropy community to provide a path forward. And, as important as they are, those very same frameworks need to be picked apart. They should act as a springboard for people to build on, as well as to deviate from.

After all, you need to know the rules to break them.

As with any status quo, challenges within philanthropy come in many forms. One of those is the generational line: deep chasms are felt between generations on the issues philanthropy should prioritise, and the approaches & tools that can be deployed.

We’re starting to see new, younger generations of wealth stewards focusing on social change as the ultimate goal. These generations also report being the champions of impact investing within their families, coupled with a drive towards aligning their values and principles across their entire portfolio, from traditional grant-making to for-profit investing.

“We’re starting to see new, younger generations of wealth stewards focusing on social change as the ultimate goal.”

The intergenerational wealth transfer which is already underway (estimated at $3trillion), is now throwing a light on the lack of authentic discussion between younger and older philanthropists.

In our society, there are limited spaces where genuine intergenerational discussion can take place without age playing a role in who is listened to and who is ignored.

Families are often subject to generational power dynamics, with greater respect given to the wisdom (real or perceived) of family members whose lives span more decades than our own. In professional environments, we also experience these hierarchies. Unspoken rules that dictate whose ideas may be taken forward, irrespective of credibility or relevance.

In speaking with funders across a spectrum of ages, I see this issue daily. Some feel that younger family members lack the maturity to see the full picture, that they don’t have necessary experience to make decisions.

And whilst cultures differ from East to West, there is a general acceptance that length of time on our planet can be an indicator of wisdom, prompting the older generation to have the final say.

But younger generations provide invaluable guidance to these discussions. From digital skills to professional nous, younger philanthropists have the abilities and desires that are essential to solve many of our current social issues. Their voice needs to be welcomed into the philanthropy community.

But this social change will not happen overnight. Can we really afford to wait for intergenerational dialogue to reach a level where it’s on an equal footing? Where the voices and perspectives of the next generation can sit alongside those of earlier generations, to reach agreement about how to deploy resources for greatest impact?

“Creating intergenerational parity will be a bumpy (and at times difficult) road, but a road with a shared destination.”

We need to ask ourselves whether we can instead focus on what each generation (and each individual) brings to the table – lived experience, practice and knowledge, coupled with new ideas, bold thinking and a shared desire to do good with our resources.

To make this work, we need to approach conversations in a forgiving way. In a way which understands that creating intergenerational parity will be a bumpy (and at times difficult) road, but a road with a shared destination.

The sector should consider moving away from intellectualising discussions and towards open, vulnerable, humble discussions where the voices of different generations can sit side by side, focusing on pooling our perspectives, not dividing our opinions.

We need bold approaches, and fast. These won’t come from continuing to do things in the same way.

Marie-Louise Gourlay

Marie-Louise Gourlay is the Managing Director of Europe for The Philanthropy Workshop. Find out more about The Philanthropy Workshop’s activity here.

Can we agree to disagree when it comes to philanthropy?

‘Philanthropy Right Now’ is a monthly opinion column for Beacon Collaborative. It features commentary and though-pieces from experts working in UK philanthropy. In this month’s column, Rhodri Davies (Philanthropy Expert in Residence at Pears Foundation) highlights the necessity of introducing nuance into today’s binary philanthropy debates.

Philanthropy, as I never tire of telling anyone who will listen, is a curious and complex thing. At a micro level it is all about the choices of individuals, which are deeply personal and reflect ingrained cultural and ethical values (not to mention a whole host of conscious and unconscious biases).

But at a macro level it is also a key mechanism for the redistribution of resources- alongside the state and the market – so it raises fundamental questions about liberty, justice and what we want our society to look like. 

As a result, there is always the risk of conflict when discussing philanthropy, as it can bring to light deep-seated differences in opinion and ideology. Navigating these challenges requires that we embrace nuance and are willing to at least try to see issues from other points of view.

“There is always the risk of conflict when discussing philanthropy.”

Sometimes we even need to hold multiple conflicting, and quite possibly contradictory, thoughts in our head at one time. This should not be impossible, but in an age of increasing polarisation and polemic it feels increasingly difficult. 

The culture war narratives that have taken hold in the media imagination are part of the problem. They push us to view complex issues in overly-simplistic terms and demand that we “choose sides” based on stark dividing lines, when in reality there are often large swathes of grey area.

These narratives also encourage us to “other” those who disagree with us; seeing them not as people with legitimate different points of view, but as “enemies” with whom we should not even engage. 

Social media is almost certainly another factor here. The economics of the online “attention economy” have created further incentives to simplify complex issues and present them in ways that stoke argument and division to keep us clicking.

“The tendency of social media to create filter bubbles[…] leads us to hold views more dogmatically.”

Likewise, the tendency of social media to create filter bubbles in which our own views are echoed and amplified can leads us to hold those views more dogmatically and to see anyone who disagrees with us as “the enemy”. And these problems may well get worse.

The news that Elon Musk is to buy Twitter, for instance, was greeted with dismay by many who fear that his self-proclaimed love of free speech and his own abrasive public persona herald a new era of further coarsening of the online sphere.

The challenge for philanthropy is that this all comes at a time when it is already having to adapt and evolve in the face of major social, political and technological changes; as well as growing scrutiny and critique of the influence of wealth in our society.

For those of us keen to help that evolution happen, it is more vital than ever that parties with a wide range of views about the legitimacy and role of philanthropy are able to engage productively and in good faith.

The danger otherwise is that rather than the nuanced (but probably not always easy) conversations we need to be having in order to move things forward, we instead get only empty debates that collapse into “philanthropy is good” or “philanthropy is bad”.

And that benefits no-one.

Rhodri Davies

Philanthropy Expert in Residence at Pears Foundation

Rhodri Davies is a widely-respected expert and commentator on philanthropy and civil society issues. He is the author of Public Good by Private Means: How philanthropy shapes Britain, which traces the history of philanthropy in Britain and what it tells us about the modern context.

 

Following his role as Head of Policy at Charities Aid Foundation, Rhodri is now Philanthropy Expert in Residence at Pears Foundation. He is also working as a Pears Fellow in the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent.

Jessica Maybanks explains how enabling philanthropists to provide more holistic support of charities will lead to more impactful donor-fundraiser partnerships.

Relationship fundraising is an ever evolving concept, and broadly speaking most charities understand the critical need to engage supporters meaningfully, through a planned journey of cultivation and stewardship.

The donor journey is especially important for philanthropic supporters, who need to build their knowledge of, and trust in, an organisation before they invest at a significant level. However, over time, even the most professional fundraisers can become blinkered, focusing on a rudimentary process of relationship management that involves a conveyor belt of “box-ticking” activities such as: update reports; event invitations; project visits; periodic newsletters; and networking opportunities.

Whilst these offerings are made with good intentions, too often they are undertaken out of habit, and to make fundraisers feel they have fulfilled their end of the bargain when receiving sizeable donations. The truth is, this prescribed method of stewardship, is a generic assumption about donors’ requirements, and not always the best way of truly deepening a relationship, nor maximising value for a charity. Whilst appropriate and necessary in some instances, events can be costly and time-consuming to organise; donor reports can be an additional layer to already rigorous internal controls; and project visits can be distracting for busy field-staff.

“Effective relationships between philanthropists and charities should be based on a mutual desire to achieve set outcomes.”

At international equine welfare charity Brooke, the Philanthropy and Partnerships team has been scrutinising our traditional, planned route of stewardship, looking at ways to create bespoke partnerships that truly consider funders’ desires, but critically, that add value to the charity beyond financial support. Asking key supporters who were already giving at exceptional levels for further assistance (albeit non-financial) initially felt uncomfortable.

This was perhaps exacerbated by an entrenched, cultural belief that social return is in some way less valuable than financial return, thereby leaving the beneficiary feeling indebted. To create true partnership, inherent power imbalances need to be put aside, and social return/impact truly valued, and recognised for the critical importance it plays in effecting transformation. In summary, effective relationships between philanthropists and charities should be based on a mutual desire to achieve set outcomes, whilst exploring the most effective ways of doing so together.

“We were knocking on an open door when we embarked on conversations about how individuals could help beyond their financial contributions.”

And at Brooke, it was the fundraisers, not our philanthropic partners who needed to adapt and discard traditional ways of working. The charity operates with animals and people in some of the poorest communities in the world, and our supporters tend to mirror our own personality and values: they are compassionate, respectful and humble, and donate exclusively to make a positive difference. As such, we were knocking on an open door when we embarked on conversations about how individuals could help beyond their financial contributions. The strategy started with a comprehensive analysis of organisational needs, involving conversations with various departments.

Examples of sought-after opportunities included:

1. Campaigning: Asking well-connected individuals to support the launch phase of a new campaign.
2. Trusteeship: Utilising Board members with specialist skills for some of our international programmes.
3. Hosting: Patrons acting as hosts for Brooke-led events, as well as opportunities to piggy-back third-party led events.
4. Media: Help with achieving high-profile press coverage.
5. Ambassadors: Speaking opportunities at target events, and to target audiences.
6. Advocates: Influential figures to promote our advocacy and policy messaging.

Within a twelve month period of setting up one-to-one meetings with some of our key supporters (on Zoom or, where possible, face-to-face), all of these needs were met in some way.  Indeed there was an overwhelming enthusiasm at having been asked to act on behalf of the charity, as one of the “home team”. The briefing sessions and preparation that ensued meant that philanthropic supporters became personal champions of Brooke’s work. They shared in challenges and frustrations, but also the highs of: introductions working out; events going well; or new opportunities coming to fruition.

Whilst fundraising is undoubtedly tough, there is a joy that accompanies success, perhaps even more so in the philanthropic sphere, where positive results can be transformational in terms of what a charity can achieve. Sharing in these moments of elation with supporters who have personally invested in the outcomes has resulted in far deeper affinity with the cause, and a far superior understanding of our work than any glossy report or newsletter could ever achieve.

Jessica Maybanks

Jessica is a Philanthropy and Partnerships Advisor at Brooke.

Dr Beth Breeze OBE discusses why so many fundamental criticisms of philanthropy remain unchallenged in the UK today. She puts forward an argument for why we need to change the narrative around high-net-worth charitable giving.

My defence of philanthropy owes a debt to the Beacon Collaborative. The conversations I’ve had over the years with the people who founded and participate in Beacon have hugely helped to shape my thinking about the constructive role that philanthropy can play in society, and the damaging consequences that unconstructive – and often uninformed – critique can have.

Attacks on ‘big giving’ have become more commonplace over the last decade or so, and they are coming from at least three different directions:

• Academic Critiques, that view philanthropy as fundamentally undemocratic;
• Insider Critiques, that castigate givers for picking the “wrong” causes, and;
• Populist Critiques, that views all giving as a self-interested scam.

The essentials of these arguments are long-standing and contain some seeds of truth: donors are not elected, some giving is more effective than others, and mixed-motives are the norm. What’s new is the unprecedented scale and volume of these criticisms, their instant spread via moral grandstanding on social media, and the lack of any discernible counter-argument.

I understand why philanthropists themselves might hesitate to push back: who wants to hear from privileged people who feel misunderstood? But having worked as a fundraiser for a decade, and knowing how reliant many nonprofits are on donated income, it became clear to me that a defence of philanthropy was needed.

“I understand why philanthropists might hesitate to push back: who wants to hear from privileged people who feel misunderstood?”

We know that negative reinforcements decrease the likelihood of that action taking place (who will give if giving is seen as proof you’re a tax-dodging egotist?). So, if hyper-criticism of philanthropy risks curtailing donations then it urgently needs a response, because charities cannot run on goodwill alone.

Almost all of us benefit in some way from the work of organisations that need philanthropic gifts of all sizes to fund activity that benefits everyone, such as stronger communities, a cleaner environment, medical advances and new knowledge. Donations that funded vaccines and cures for COVID-19 benefited people of every wealth bracket, the same is true for philanthropic efforts to mitigate climate change.

But the highest price for a world with less philanthropy would be paid by those facing the toughest life circumstances, who fall through whatever public sector safety net exists where they live, who cannot purchase all their necessities in the market, and who are therefore most reliant on the kindness of strangers.

“But the highest price for a world with less philanthropy would be paid by those facing the toughest life circumstances.”

Exposing the unfair generalisations and over-statements in common critiques of philanthropy is, of course, not the same thing as defending every philanthropist and every philanthropic act. There remains a need to root out and expose poor philanthropic behaviour, and to gently help everyone to become more thoughtful and effective in their giving. But nuance is lacking in most critiques.

One name (most often ‘Sackler’), or one word (such as ‘undemocratic’ or ‘tax-subsidised’) is usually enough for critics to feel they have “won” the argument, case dismissed. Yet in no other area of life do we generalise so easily from an extreme case: if we did, no one would visit a GP after Harold Shipman’s murderous acts, or trust any police officer after Wayne Couzens’ terrible crime.

Cleary there is more nuance in the academic critiques, yet ‘democracy’ amounts to more than representative democracy – that’s a very narrow way of conceiving how the public can contribute to the functioning of society: Vote then shut up!

Conceding that some good can, and has, come from private donations – including funding of campaigns to change the laws on slavery, suffrage and same-sex marriage – enables us to move away from the suggestion that philanthropy is a fundamentally illegitimate activity, to focus instead on its improvability. Things can always be done better, but it is a classic mistake to let perfection be the enemy of good, and the price of that mistake will be felt most acutely by those most reliant on private giving.

“‘Democracy’ amounts to more than representative democracy – that’s a very narrow way of conceiving how the public can contribute to the functioning of society.”

Simply noting that philanthropy can be a force for good – which seems unarguable if, for example, you are the parent of one of the millions of children whose life has been saved by philanthropic funding of vaccination programmes and disease eradication efforts – is to invite accusations of being a naïve apologist for the rich.

The fact that many rich donors share concerns about growing inequality, and are in favour of more progressive taxation, is conveniently ignored by those who use philanthropy as a lightning rod to channel all of their concerns about the state of the world today.

Wealthy non-givers are left in peace to indulge in conspicuous consumption or to hoard their wealth, whilst those who stick their head above the philanthropic parapet are shot down.

The field of philanthropy has become a dumping ground for generalised worries and performative posturing: “The world shouldn’t be like this…” is the rallying cry of critics. But it is! So what are we – collectively – going to do about it? Knocking the minority of the wealthy who are generous is an awful lot easier than doing the hard work of re-imagining and re-building social and economic structures.

“‘The world shouldn’t be like this…’ is the rallying cry of critics. But it is! So what are we – collectively – going to do about it?”

Contrary to populist expectations, there are many philanthropists on public record recognising that current structures are not serving society well. Examples of philanthropy invested in challenging the status quo include efforts to support grass-roots social justice organisations, to empower beneficiaries, to tackle inequality, and to expose and reverse class and racial privilege.

Examples of philanthropically-funded efforts to tackle structural economic challenges include the Omidyar Network’s $35 million initiative to ‘Reimagine Capitalism’ with a focus on advancing workers’ rights – a theme also present in MacKenzie Scott’s grant-making which featured a number of labour organisations.

The Ford Foundation’s prioritisation of funding social and racial justice includes alignment with the concept of ‘inclusive capitalism’ to create “an equitable, sustainable future… that works for everyone” according to the foundation’s president Darren Walker, this includes pushing corporations to look beyond shareholder returns to focus on the welfare of employees and local communities.

The belief that philanthropy only ever advances class interests is therefore clearly unfounded, as are many other elements of common critiques of philanthropy. Pointing out the lack of empirical evidence will not necessarily change the minds of those deeply attached to an anti-philanthropy view.

“Many people who are hearing and repeating critiques may well be receptive to a different perspective that acknowledges the improvability of philanthropy.”

As Ben Goldacre wrote in Bad Science: “You cannot reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into”. But many people who are hearing and repeating critiques may well be receptive to a different perspective that acknowledges the improvability of philanthropy, highlights efforts to make private giving more ethical and effective, and explains the positive potential of philanthropy.

It is time to speak up and defend philanthropy.

Beth Breeze

Fundraiser and author

Beth worked as a fundraiser and charity manager for a decade before co-founding the Centre for Philanthropy at the University of Kent in 2008 where she now leads a team conducting research and teaching courses on philanthropy and fundraising, including an innovative MA Philanthropic Studies taught by distance learning.

She researched and wrote the annual Coutts Million Pound Donor Report from 2008-2017, co-authored Richer Lives: why rich people give (2013), The Logic of Charity: Great Expectations in Hard Times (2015) and co-edited The Philanthropy Reader (2016).

Her book The New Fundraisers: who organises generosity in contemporary society? won the AFP Skystone Research Partners book prize for 2018. Beth’s latest book (Sept 2021) is entitled In Defence of Philanthropy and is available here.