Bridging diversity

Where are the women in philanthropy?

July 26, 2022 by Beacon Admin

Lucy Hart writes for Beacon Collaborative about the current level of philanthropic funding for women and women-facing initiatives and asks what we can do to increase it.

“Control F”

In May, the 2022 Sunday Times Giving List was published. As a nonprofit consultant, this is a pretty handy one-stop guide for an overview of who is giving and where in the UK. A quick “control F” of “gender” and “women” throws back one result for “gender equality” (thank you, Sir Chris Hohn) and for “women”, three.

Out of 120. Really? Really?

Of course, there’s a caveat: women’s issues and gender both come under many other philanthropic giving areas, like education, health and so forth. Understand me: I hasten to suggest only four donors give to these two causes. But alarm bells indubitably ring.

I am currently re-reading Can We All Be Feminists? by June Eric-Udorie. In it she writes:

“to those women with privilege, this is what we need from you: Organise with us, but let us be the authority on our own experiences and in our activism. Don’t speak for us – we can speak for ourselves”.

Firstly, I highly recommend this book as a starting point to verse yourself with the challenges facing, and debates within, feminism today. And secondly, acknowledge my position of privilege.

For those unfamiliar with the term intersectionality, it’s Kimberle Crenshaw’s “attempt to make feminism, anti-racist activism, and anti-discrimination law do what I thought they should – highlight the multiple avenues through which racial and gender oppression were experienced so that the problems would be easier to discuss and understand”.

In other words, Western feminism as many of us have known it, has too long been centred on the white, middle-class experience and it’s a truth we must live by and correct.

With this in mind: I am overwhelmed by the cacophony of voices speaking on “women’s issues”, and yet: where are the funds?

Back in August 2021 I gave my two cents on my hopes for the future of philanthropy in Alliance Magazine’s 25th anniversary edition. In it I referred to the 2020 The Women and Girls Index figure showing that just 1.6 per cent of philanthropic giving in the US goes to women and girls’ organisations.

So, what are we going to do about it?

And here lies feminist philanthropy. A philanthropic form that “encourages individuals and corporations to think more deeply not about who they donate to, but why they’re donating”. By adopting a feminist lens, philanthropy might look towards the margins and, for that matter, be far more transformative.

I deeply admire the work of Global Fund for Women. They’re a feminist fund with an intersectional lens. Back in 1987, four bold women: Anne Firth Murray, Frances Kissling, Laura Lederer and Nita Barrow were frustrated by a lack of interest in funding women’s human rights, so they founded an organisation to fund grass-roots women-led movements directly.

As a feminist funder, they actively shift the power to historically marginalized communities including women, girls, and gender non-conforming people. Flexible funding and resources move directly into the hands of feminist activists who know exactly how to use it.

As a non-profit consultant who works to build the capability, capacity and coherence of socially-focused organisations, it would be remiss not to say that we can help. The funders are out there, but finding the right ones? That’s the challenge. Often, funds are poured into issues “in vogue”, but let us not forget: women do comprise half the human race.

Our clients fight every day against poverty, racism, violence, environmental injustice, lack of education, misinformation and the dismantling of quality journalism, and encroachments on democracy. I would love to see more organisations tackling gender and women’s issues walk through our door. So, I say, come on in and let’s talk.

Afterword: Is change coming?

In November 2020, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization in the world, appointed their first-ever President of Gender Equality, Anita Zaidi. She leads the Foundation’s efforts to achieve gender equality by integrating gender across the Foundation’s global work. If such an influential funder has taken this step, is change coming?

Lucy Hart

Coordinator of Research and Capacity-Building

Lucy Hart is the Coordinator of Research and Capacity-Building at The Athena Advisors, a nonprofit consulting firm driven by a belief in social justice. She holds an MSc in Women, Peace and Security from the London School of Economics. For a no-obligation conversation on the challenges your nonprofit is facing, you can reach Lucy at lucy.hart@theathenaadvisors.com.

Social equity in philanthropy – management or measurement?

July 14, 2022 by Cath Dovey

Over the last few weeks, I have had personal conversations with two individual major donors who both identified the same challenge: though they give with compassion, diligence and care, both had recently been made to feel their giving was inadequate in light of changing grantmaking practices.

I mention this not to discourage, but to highlight what can happen when management practices get out of step with our ability to measure (and therefore value) what works.

The problem is that best practice depends on the kind of donor you are.”

In recent years, the foundation sector has strengthened practices and standards of accessibility, participation, accountability, transparency and diversity. Most recently, the launch of the Foundation Practice Rating measures the quality of grantmaking according to 35 criteria of accountability, transparency and diversity.

These standards drive towards promoting best practices, especially by creating greater alignment between the fundraising organisations that drive social change and the practices of the funding sector. This is an excellent goal.

The problem is that best practice depends on the kind of donor you are. Different funders adopt different strategies to maximise their philanthropic resources.

Individual donors and small family foundations rarely have websites that are actively maintained because they would rather spend their money on the causes they care about than on communications.

Many are drawn to trust-based giving practices because they want to work closely with a small number of organisations rather than soliciting applications (which are open and transparent, but also create work for charities that may come to nothing if the application cannot be funded). Their policies will reflect the kind of funder they are.

Questions around best practice have come to the fore in the wake of Covid and the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder in the US. Both shone a harsh light on the inequities in our society, including the failure of certain grantmaking practices to tackle those inequities proactively – and the consequent tacit maintenance of the status quo.

If you want social equity – or fairness – funders have to go the extra mile.”

Grant funders have come to acknowledge that equality and equity are not the same: you can treat people (and organisations) equally but still not get equal outcomes because of systemic and structural barriers. If you want social equity – or fairness – funders have to go the extra mile.

Those with fewer resources or less capacity may choose a lighter touch, or a different path altogether, but does that negate their actions toward a more equitable society? In the absence of a measurement yardstick, can we say for sure that the work of any one donor is better or worse than another?

If social equity is the sine qua non of the funding community, then it needs a common measurement framework around which to align its practices.

Currently, we seem to be moving in a different direction: managing our way toward consistent best practices without deep understanding of the consequent gains, or the role played by different funders in a wider system.

To draw a parallel, the financial markets coalesce around the principle of financial risk. All investors want to make a financial return and they all do so by managing their exposure to risk. Some look for investments that are undervalued; others look for innovation and opportunity. These many strategies result in a thriving market where companies of all sizes and in all sectors can access capital.

If the goal of grant funders is to manage inequity to increase social returns, then it follows that we need to be able to measure what puts social equity at risk in order to understand the multitude of interventions that can mitigate it.

Better management should logically produce better outcomes, but by focusing our effort on standardising the practices of equitable funding and not the measurement of gains and losses in social equity, we run a very real risk of squeezing out a significant segment of funders whose essential complementarity in the system is neither fully understood nor valued.

By proactively managing inequity, we are very likely to generate higher social returns.”

As philanthropic funders, we may not be able to, or may not wish to, adopt standard management practices. What we can all do is bring an intentional awareness of inequity to our funding decisions, knowing that by proactively managing inequity, we are very likely to generate higher social returns.

This will hold even in fields where social justice is not the primary concern. Environmental funders, for example, would become more conscious of the impacts of climate change and environmental degradation on the most disadvantaged. Arts and culture funders would become more aware of the community outreach of the organisations they support, and so on.

Embedding a social equity lens into all funding practice will increase the opportunities for measurement of social gains, from which learnings about best practices can be developed – ideally in ways that are relevant and proportionate to funders and the organisations they support.

Cath Dovey

Co-founder, The Beacon Collaborative

Formerly a co-founder of Scorpio Partnership, the global wealth management strategy and research firm, Cath led the firm’s high-net-worth and strategy research capabilities for two decades. In the field of philanthropy, she headed Scorpio Partnership’s global research work with major donors, family givers and family foundations. Cath chairs Rosa, the UK fund for women and girls, and is a trustee of Philanthropy Impact.

Government, Community, Philanthropy: a three-pronged relationship for social good.

April 20, 2022 by Beacon Admin

Andrew Watt explores a three-pronged relationship for social good.

It’s hard to look at any social, political, religious or artistic initiative at any point in our history and not find that philanthropy or philanthropists have been part of it. As drivers, facilitators, partners and investors.

Yet when you read the accounts, whether historical or current, it’s hard to see that recurring theme reflected.

“Why is philanthropy so little considered?”

It’s not often that philanthropy stands alone. At its most effective it’s a partner of government and communities, without whom it could not achieve its aims. Equally, without philanthropy as a driver of ideas, many initiatives of government would simply not get off the ground.

So what does philanthropy provide so consistently that has ensured its continued role? And why is philanthropy so little considered?

Philanthropists are creative. In their personal and professional lives, they are often entrepreneurial, willing to undertake strategic risk to get things done – and accepting that failure, while possible, also brings opportunities to refine and redefine in its wake.

“The dynamism of philanthropy is part of its DNA.”

Philanthropists are driven to make change or intervene to secure impact. It’s not the process but the outcome that matters. Indeed, undue focus on process is one of the reasons that philanthropists take action or intervene. It’s the catalytic aspect of philanthropic action that can drive government and community engagement.

The dynamism of philanthropy is part of its DNA. A strong and strategic partner in government can bring long term sustainability, structured partnerships and funding to the table. Engaged community partners ensure a sense of ownership and relevance. Separately, much can be achieved: together, the impact can be transformational.

If you look around the UK it’s not hard to find examples of this. The regeneration of coastal towns such as St Ives, Folkestone and Margate; projects in Bishop Auckland, Gloucester, Nottingham and many others show the combined impact of creative philanthropy, local government investment in strategic infrastructure and delivery by communities coming together to achieve extraordinary, lasting social and economic change.

In all these cases employment, education, transport and health services have been critical. Government sponsored programmes of investment and local authority support have been essential. None of the outcomes in these areas could have been achieved without the active participation of the state. But all of them share something more – an indefinable sense of well being that derives from the human aspect brought by community engagement and philanthropy.

“Any act of philanthropy is ultimately the result of the passion, drive and perspective of an individual.”

Armenian venture philanthropist, Ruben Vardanyan, has invested in strategic aspects of the infrastructure of Armenia for many years. His intention (and that of his partners) has been to arrive at a tipping point that enables Armenia to look to a sustainable future and successful growth.

But what he has identified along that journey is that, for a community to truly thrive, its members have to have a sense of happiness and wellbeing beyond what derives from social and economic security. Indefinable, yes, but something that government programmes and state sponsored initiatives could not provide.

That human dimension is a critical aspect of philanthropy. Any act of philanthropy is ultimately the result of the passion, drive and perspective of an individual. In conjunction with members of communities (of experience, of interest, geographic or social) success derives from human qualities; intelligence, passion, pragmatism. Individuals form a critical part in driving government action and policy – but policy is not personal. It may be strategic but it’s not intended to be engaging.

“The individuals responsible for developing government policy need to have an understanding and appreciation of the power of philanthropy.”

Policy provides a framework. Strategic investment builds platforms and sustainability. And this is where government is a key partner to philanthropy. By building in conjunction with the entrepreneurialism and flexibility of philanthropic and social capital, government intervention can hope for far greater success.

For this to happen the individuals responsible for developing government policy need to have an understanding and appreciation of the power of philanthropy – and its complimentary rather than conflicting role in relation to government strategy.

Initiatives driven by social and philanthropic investment have an inherent nimbleness and flexibility that statutory programmes don’t. If changes need to be made, they can be enacted rapidly. If one approach fails, a line can be drawn, lessons learned can be applied and another developed.

As a recurring element in successful change and impact, philanthropy needs to be considered as a core driver by government. Its potential should be a factor on the table in every government strategy unit.

“If philanthropy is to be effective, government departments need to be consistent in policy and approach, understanding the wide benefits of philanthropy.”

Civil servants and politicians need familiarity with examples of philanthropic partnerships that have driven and delivered change in communities. Philanthropy is part of the bank of assets to be drawn on. Beyond familiarity, what can government do to encourage philanthropists to engage as partners?

A key is to recognise the need to harmonise government policy towards philanthropy itself. If philanthropy is to be effective, government departments need to be consistent in policy and approach, understanding the wide benefits of philanthropy.

The proposal being made as part of the work of Pro Bono Economics (proposed in Beacon Collaborative’s 2021 research) represents a pragmatic approach to achieving a joined-up understanding of the value of philanthropy and consistency across strands of government policy and departments.

To have one individual – a “philanthropy commissioner” – working across departments and highlighting added and tangible value deriving from philanthropic and social investment could be transformational. It also has the advantage of being both affordable and sustainable.

Understanding what philanthropists need to support their engagement and helping to implement an effective regulatory platform that underpins and does not constrain philanthropy is critical.

Philanthropic capital typically represents a relatively small percentage of total wealth in financial terms: in emotional terms, however, it represents what is most important to an individual or their family. Philanthropic capital is generally managed from the same platform as a family’s main wealth – so, in terms of self-interest, the benefits to the UK in attracting philanthropic capital and investment could also be significant.

“Partnerships between philanthropy, government and community are complex […]but have the capacity to deliver sustainable impact.”

In short, partnerships between philanthropy, government and community are complex, as are the benefits deriving from them. But, when successful, the outcomes of those partnerships are not only transformational but additionally have the capacity to deliver sustainable impact beyond the cycle of one or two successive terms of office. In some cases, over many generations.

The question, surely, is why, with so many examples of success, we can’t secure more?

Andrew Watt

Director of Third Sector Strategy

Andrew Watt is a director of Third Sector Strategy, a consultancy serving the needs of the third sector in policy, communications, strategic development, community engagement and advocacy.

Andrew’s career has been in the social sector for 25 years; in his professional capacity and as a volunteer. His various roles have seen him advocate for fundraising and resource mobilisation across the globe: in Westminster, Brussels, Ottawa and Washington DC., building partnerships, convening and facilitating essential debate.

Changing Lives; why philanthropy is vital in giving young people a chance.

October 7, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Changing Lives; why philanthropy is vital in giving young people a chance.

^{‘Changing Lives’ was written for Beacon Collaborative by Daniel Flynn, CEO of YMCA North Staffordshire. Find out more about Daniel below.}

Opportunities for young people to change their path in life are not easy to come by, particularly for those without the networks and support to effect change.

There is often an assumption that young people know what they want and have the capacity to make the correct decisions for themselves. But young people do not know what they do not know. How can we expect them to achieve a better life without the relationships and people to help them?

For those young people with parents that have high social capital, they have one key thing – access. Access to opportunities, travel and vast networks which allow them to make positive choices based on their extensive experiences. Access to try things out, have a go and take that first step. These opportunities are simply not available to their poorer and less connected counterparts.

Many interventions have attempted to address the issue of social mobility but have not quite succeeded. But where broad initiatives have failed, philanthropy has often succeeded. Philanthropists have the flexibility to apply their funding in a variety of ways, based on what the situation demands. For this reason, philanthropic money can play a pivotal role in changing the life chances of young people. Here are a few tips for how to use your money to promote social mobility and change the lives of young people…

1. Creating the capacity to engage and learn.

For so many young people our educational system does not work. We need to think about how we create the space to learn in different ways – through art, sport, nature and more. The capacity to learn is a gift young people will take with them throughout their life. Let’s make sure they are engaged and understand the value of learning and education.

- - What you can do: Funding Arts initiatives, nature groups and sports schemes are great ways to build the confidence of typically disadvantaged young people and engage them in learning.

2. Promoting Travel

Travel changes lives. Culture enriches our soul. The more we learn about our world, the more fulfilled our lives can be. Many young people are trapped by poverty,  but poverty is not limited to financial opportunity. It is also the poverty of never seeing the countryside, never experiencing another culture. Travel promotes equality and inclusion and can often be a turning point in a young person’s life, providing different perspectives and stimulating exploration.

- - What you can do: Fund a national/international residential. Offer opportunities to visit/meet extraordinary people and places through networks. Sponsor a young person on an oversees placement.

3. Building Networks

Children of middle-class parents have access to a vast array of people who can help them on their way. Want to be a doctor, lawyer, business owner? Those parents will know someone who can help and will rightly use these networks to help their children. What about children who have no parents – or are carers/care leavers? How do we use our networks for them too? Relationships change people’s lives. How do we increase young people’s social capital to improve their life chances?

- - What you can do: Offer work placements/work experience. Host events which young people can attend to meet new people. Offer coaching/mentoring. Connect with schools and charities, meeting young people directly to hear their stories and share yours. Open up your business to do a show and tell. Expose young people to your networks and your worlds.

4. Providing Resources

A huge barrier to anyone’s next step in life – particularly a young person’s – is having the resources to follow their passions. Bursaries can provide a huge cushion for young people and can be used in multiple ways to help them progress. This can mean many things, from driving lessons to a laptop, to furnishing their student accommodation. Not having the resources to take your next step is so limiting. Let’s work to change that.

- - What you can do: Provide bursary funding to young people. Make it largely unrestricted so they have access to funds which cover a large area of their need.

A young person’s future should not be determined by their past. With the right love, support, opportunities and people, every life can be positively changed.

To quote Rupi Kaur…

“We are all born / so beautiful / the greatest tragedy is / being convinced we are not .”

^{Daniel Flynn is CEO of YMCA North Staffordshire, he has worked in the charitable sector for the last 35 years. His work has focused around social housing and homelessness, and he clearly understands the linkages between design and outcome. YMCA is still the biggest youth based charity in the world based in 138 countries servicing 50 million people every day, He works nationally and internationally for YMCA, working in West Africa and Israel/Palestine. He is committed to the area and loves to see the green shoots of creativity that he believes will unlock the prosperity of all.}

Elite philanthropy – academic study vs real world practice

March 15, 2021 by Cath Dovey

Elite Philanthropy – academic study vs real world practice

A response to “Giving by the super-rich could be perpetuating social inequality, academics conclude”

On March 2021, Stephen Delahunty published an article in Third Sector entitled ‘Giving by the super-rich could be perpetuating social inequality, academic conclude.‘ The article is based on new research published by academics from the University of Bath School of Management and Newcastle University Business School.

The study – Elite Philanthropy in the United States and the United Kingdom in the New Age of Inequalities – is based on a literature review of 263 studies, from Carnegie in 1889 to the present day, and focuses on multi-millionaire and billionaire philanthropy. It concludes elite philanthropy has received insufficient academic attention and more quantitative and qualitative research is required to understand the interplay between entrepreneurship, wealth and philanthropy. We would support this.

The study is an important and comprehensive literature review. However, the exclusive reliance on academic sources, which the authors acknowledge does not provide a thorough explanation of the dynamics we observe in philanthropy, means the analysis lacks the context of real-world practice. It infers motive from academic observation; it includes no direct analysis of the actions of philanthropists; and, it fails to take account of the role played by non-academics in the philanthropy sector who work to promote best practice considering ethics, power and accountability.

In this article, we seek to address the principal misconceptions that have been drawn out from the paper in Stephen Delahunty’s article. You can find other articles on this theme here, by Paul Vallely, and here, by Dr Beth Breeze.

Read the original study

The article begins by asserting that “large-scale giving by the super-rich has done almost nothing to redistribute wealth from rich to poor”. This statement makes a fundamental assumption that it is the intention of philanthropists to redistribute wealth. Philanthropy reflects the personal desire of individuals to contribute to positive social or environmental outcomes. Wealth redistribution is a matter for economic policy.

Similarly, the article asserts that “giving by wealthy individuals [has] helped to preserve social inequalities.” Once again, this suggests philanthropy has both the mandate and the capacity to upend social inequality. While it is true that some experienced philanthropists work towards systemic transformations, the majority of giving is focused on alleviating suffering and needs that are the result of pre-existing social inequalities.

It goes on “giving by the super-wealthy had failed to significantly benefit poor countries in the developing world.” Not only does this statement again assume philanthropists have the capacity to enable transformative economic development in poor countries – even where governments have failed to do so – it also fails to acknowledge the enormous challenges involved in giving money to non-profits in developing countries, as Beacon highlighted in research published last month. As a consequence, philanthropists who wish to contribute to international aid and development often do so via multinational NGOs, and the methodology of the research will not take account of such practical challenges.

Despite these failures, the article says “considerable dividends [are paid] to donors in the form of privilege and influence in society and politics” with “the super-rich able to pursue personal and political agendas through major charitable foundations”.

Firstly, assuming that the motives of philanthropists are not altruistic (which the study does as a central premise), there are regulations in place in the UK designed specifically to check such transgressions of power. All charitable foundations in the UK, even those funded by the super-rich, are bound by Charity Commission regulations, which require campaigning activity to be aligned with the foundation’s purpose and, in turn, must serve the public benefit. Secondly, there are rules governing party political campaigns, with strict limits on how much candidates and parties can spend. These rules are specifically designed to impede the capacity to “buy” political influence in the UK by philanthropic or any other means.

The ultimate expression of the disproportionate “social and cultural capital” received by philanthropists, the article suggests, is in the form of UK honours. On this point, it is worth noting that in the New Year’s Honours List only 4 of the 1,239 honours were given explicitly for philanthropy. One presumes the other 1,235 honourees were “amassing … social and cultural capital” in different walks of life.

Next the article argues that efforts to reform tax incentives, such as the cap on tax relief for donations, failed because “because philanthropists … almost universally opposed any changes to the system”.

Here, it is important to note that tax incentives are offered to encourage more giving for the benefit of civil society, not for the benefit of philanthropists. The majority of the tax relief goes to the charity in the form of GiftAid. Furthermore, the campaign against the tax cap on charitable donations in 2012 was, in fact, spearheaded by NCVO, not by philanthropists, on the basis that it would choke the flow of money to civil society.

We would suggest there is an alternative narrative that urgently needs academic examination, which is that financial success itself creates social privilege and political influence. In the act of becoming a philanthropist a wealthy individual acknowledges this privilege. When practiced well, philanthropists consciously defer this power to the causes and individuals they support and through this act of deference can challenge the status quo.

While there may be several zeros on the cheque, philanthropy is not a major economic force with the power to right social wrongs. Rather, it is a reagent within a wider system with the role to agitate and activate the messy process of positive social change.

Place-based Philanthropy: The Rationale for Culturally-driven Regeneration Projects

February 4, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Place-based Philanthropy:

The rationale for culturally-driven regeneration projects

Written by Paul Callaghan and Paul Williams. Originally for New Philanthropy for Arts & Culture, a project supported by Beacon Collaborative. January 2021. More about the authors below.

For many people, potential philanthropists among them, the phrase “L’art pour l’art” or in English “art for art’s sake” defines its role and importance as being artistic and not for other reasons. Donors have contributed to save great works of art ‘for the nation’ simply because they are great works of art. The rationale for funding an orchestra is often focused on the quality of the music it produces rather than the wider benefits that it brings to society.

Yet, in today’s complex world, “art for art’s sake” is only one element of what culture can deliver. In fact, the importance of art and culture is that it can be a means to achieve other ends that touch not just the artistic soul of the individual but have a much wider impact on society as a whole. Culture can be used as a sophisticated tool to strengthen social cohesion, increase personal confidence and improve life skills. It feeds into the economy, health and learning. It can help us to cope with things like loneliness and fill us with hope. It can strengthen our ability to act as empathetic and democratic citizens at the same time as creating innovative training and new employment routes.

Culture has always mattered and today it matters more than ever for our society. It helps give a place to its values and identity. It inspires, empowers and elevates those who live, work, and enjoy where they live and as such it should be placed at the centre of economic and social regeneration.

So, in assessing the value of art and culture we must recognise the role cultural activity has to play as a tool for urban regeneration and place-shaping and also as something that inspires creativity and innovation, changing individuals as well as places.

Theatres, galleries, cinemas, libraries, or concert halls are all integral parts of a thriving society as they create a vibrancy in communities, entertainment for residents, and are a source of happiness and inspiration. Our society needs to have a cultural soul. There need to be opportunities where people can develop their cultural talents, a place where people can go to see or create great art and a place that helps other people realise that their own creativity is important and inspires them.

One of the biggest drivers of a successful place is confidence and culture can provide this. This is not just about cultural infrastructure, it is also about the activity that happens such as concerts, exhibitions, design competitions or children’s craft workshops that promote expression, celebration and achievement and embody the values and identity of a place, cultural activities that express local distinctiveness and that encourage civic pride. What is more, citizens are empowered through the creation of civic pride and social cohesion, and they feel more connected and content. It also generates prosperity by attracting visitors, investors and people who wish to study or live there. It can drive high growth creative businesses and stimulate both a day-time and night-time economy that have benefits that are far wider than those enjoyed by the artists or the venues. Culture tends to spread prosperity much wider through society as it creates jobs and opportunities and adds to people’s confidence and pride in where they live.

From an economic standpoint, we need a society that puts arts and culture at the heart of its towns and cities. There is nothing ‘nice to have’ about the arts and the creative industries. Arts and Culture are central to our economy, our public life and our nation’s health. Cultural and creative industries are typically labour-intensive, employing people in the community and creating jobs that cannot be done anywhere else. They increase footfall and spending not only in the cultural activity itself but also around it. With the decline of high street retail as the main driver of towns and cities it is more important than ever to encourage, develop and fund cultural venues and cultural activities in our towns and cities.

But how does art impact people and society? It is extremely difficult to quantify and this intangibility often proves problematic when trying to convince funders and donors of the importance of arts funding, since the significance and merit of the arts cannot be judged by popular consensus and numbers alone. Yet, culture should be for the masses, not the few. This should not just be ‘popular culture’ but access to all forms of culture for all. This is not an equity argument – although it easily could be. No, this is a social and economic argument. The right to access or participate in great art and culture should not be a function of where you are born or where you live. It should be there for all, irrespective of socioeconomic standing or postcode.

The most creative people often come from the most unexpected places and by widening participation and investing in the arts and creative industries we can take culture and creativity into the heart of communities and fundamentally change places forever. It will come as no surprise that the areas with the lowest participation rates in arts, culture and creativity are also the poorest communities, places with significant physical and mental health issues, low educational achievement levels and challenges of social cohesion.

Through cultural development we can change places in a number of ways, for example:

Help a place, and particularly its young people, to grow more confident, raise aspiration and attainment levels and create many more opportunities to develop.
Build a society that is more inclusive and can help tackle issues of discrimination, loneliness and social isolation.
Create a healthier populace and increase the wellbeing of citizens.
Create a better place in which to live and work, embedding sustainable social change as central to the future.

The cultural multiplier, the return from focusing attention, encouragement and investment in culture, is so much greater in poorer places because it is in such towns and cities that culture is not just a ‘nice to have’, it is a fundamental game-changer and becomes a powerful force of regeneration, both culturally and economically. It has a positive relationship with health, crime, society, education, confidence and well-being. It isn’t an ‘either/or’ situation, it is an ‘as well as’ situation.

Culture-led regeneration schemes, defined as a model in which “cultural activity is seen as the catalyst and engine of regeneration”, focus on a number of common goals. The vocabulary employed in each application can be different, but the goals can be roughly grouped into three categories:

Production;
Consumption;
Regeneration.

Production goals relate to the levels of cultural production within an area, seeking to boost the local economy by creating sustainable jobs in cultural production, developing original cultural output that can then be exported across the country and the world. Consumption goals focus on increasing cultural consumption, increasing audiences and creating the designated ‘quarter’ as an attractive destination for cultural visitors to the city. This also feeds into the wider economy of the area, often stimulating the night-time economy in particular, generating a non-cultural economic benefit as a by-product of the increasing cultural consumption. There are also important considerations of diversity in those that are both involved in creating cultural activity and in enjoying it.

In the complex and multi-layered society in which we live we must consider how best to address issues of ethnicity, gender diversity and disability. We have to reach out to people of all social classes and ensure that the cultural activity that we promote and encourage is relevant to the society in which we live. A good example of this is the Newcastle ‘City of Dreams’ initiative led by the Newcastle Gateshead Cultural Venues which targets children in care and children who are carers and aims to give them opportunities to become involved in cultural activity in a way that would not have been envisaged in the past. Consumption is not just about getting the traditional audience to go to more events – that is relatively easy. It is about widening cultural participation throughout all parts of society.

Regeneration goals specifically relate to the built environment, and revolve around the maintenance, creation and renovation of buildings and other cityscape elements. In many cases, cultural quarters are anchored by the development of ‘flagship’ buildings, which both represent a new element in a city’s environment and act as a symbol of the development itself.

The Warwick Commission Report Enriching Britain: Culture, Creativity and Growth highlights the generation of a sense of identity, place and community as one of the key functions of culture and cultural activity, transcending the economic benefits of a flourishing artistic and creative sector.

Barriers to Place-based Philanthropy

Often Arts and Culture is not seen as a priority for potential donors and it is often only when the donor has a specific or personal interest in a certain art form, organisation or place that leads to involvement and giving.
Cultural activities are often seen as unquantifiable and very subjective and so it is sometimes difficult to see what a difference a donation would make.
The perception is that culture is somehow elitist. Giving money to help the educated middle classes enjoy something that they could afford to pay for.
There is often the lack of a credible ‘landing site’ for donations. Many cultural organisations are seen as too small, run by volunteers and consequently not having sufficient levels of expertise, experience or governance. This may be an organisation like the Community Foundation but better still if it can be a trusted, well-managed and well-governed cultural organisation that has clear goals and measurable outcomes.
There are not enough ‘exciting’ cultural projects that will attract philanthropists. Cultural organisations are usually looking for revenue support while philanthropists prefer high-profile capital projects.
There has been too often a lack of matched funding because local authorities are strapped for cash and have no access to European Social and Cultural Funds.
Many cultural projects are seen as being ‘Public sector’ led either by Local or National Government and there is consequently a view that there is no need for private money.
There is generally a lack of understanding by the public sector and specifically local government of philanthropic motives (why would people give money away – surely there is something in it for them) and by philanthropists wary of the public sector bureaucracy.

Reasons for Place-based Philanthropy

The nature of philanthropy is to do good to all. Therefore, projects that have a wider impact are seen as good.
If planned, researched and monitored they can be quantifiable and measurable with impacts in:
- educational attainment;
- health measures;
- jobs and employment;
- societal change;
- reduction in loneliness and social isolation

If these can be seen holistically as a ‘common good’ then delivering such outcomes through arts and cultural activity makes funding much easier. So, for example, someone who is interested in tackling loneliness and isolation in older people could recognise the benefits of a choir or a writing group. This gives shape to a common cause approach to alleviating some of our more intractable societal problems.
There can be a level of personal satisfaction as the donor is seen to be a driver of change
The wish to give something back to one’s hometown – the diaspora effect.
Potential family interest and affinity.

Challenges in finding Philanthropists in the Regions

The poorest places often have the lowest number of successful entrepreneurs as they are often areas of industrial decline and change. Consequently, it is often a shallow pool in which to fish.
Poor areas have more needs and so more demands on philanthropy.
Sometimes it is difficult to create a diaspora contact list because the University is often doing this and offering honorary degrees to successful people from the area, often seeking some generous giving afterwards.

How best to encourage Place-based Philanthropic Giving

Have a safe and clear landing place for donations.
Establish trust in the organisation and those who run it.
Establish a track record of doing good work and good deeds.
Develop a new venture – whether this is a new cultural venue, cultural project or cultural initiative.
Develop personal connections or use established fundraisers.
Organise influencer and showcase events.
Potentially offer naming rights, either personally or corporate naming.
Raise money through an intermediary organisation such a Community Foundation or the High Sheriff Fund.
Encourage legacy funding.
Have a clearly defined project that is:
- feasible;
- shows support from elsewhere including other funders such as Lottery Funders, trusts and foundations;
- Where possible align the objectives of projects to the interest of the donor.

Introduction to Philanthropists: Ask potential donors to become:
- Board Member;
- Patron;
- Custodian;
- Friend.

Case Studies of culturally-driven regeneration projects

NewcastleGateshead

NewcastleGateshead is a prime example of a culturally-led, place-based regeneration. Initially led by the two local authorities with cultural ambitions, over the last twenty years it has done much to make Tyneside a cultural and creative hub. Its bid to be European Capital of Culture 2008 was a reflection of this and although it was unsuccessful the process of cultural regeneration continued with the attraction of large public cultural events and encouragement of local participation with the arts.

Investment into new infrastructure has included Baltic art gallery, Sage Gateshead music venue and Live Theatre’s LiveWorks development. Partnerships between regional development bodies, both local authorities, Arts Council England and the jointly created Newcastle Gateshead Initiative (NGI) has maintained strong focus on culture and allowed an understanding of the needs and possible impacts of attracting creative sector businesses and practitioners to the region. This has also led to an increase in tourism which now employs over 10% of the region’s population. These cultural policies have undoubtedly helped to improve both the image and the economy of the city-region.

The regeneration of the Quayside area presents a perfect example of a multi-stage project. The two sides of the Tyne have been linked by the construction of the Gateshead Millennium Bridge and this has seen a marked boost to the area’s night-time and non-cultural economy and the Quayside became one of the most important attractions for visitors to NewcastleGateshead, incorporating iconic new buildings and vibrant, exciting nightlife.

NewcastleGateshead Quayside is a good example of the successful pursuit of regeneration through active intervention. Prior to the Quayside redevelopment, the area was severely depressed, lacking attractions for visitors and suffering economically as a result. The Baltic Flour Mills, now repurposed as BALTIC Centre for Contemporary Art had closed in 1982, at the loss of 170 jobs in the local economy. Despite remaining a notable local landmark, by the 1990s it had come to represent the failures of the local economy. The redevelopment of the building saw it celebrated as a symbol of a town and an area ‘on the up’, an identification which became a distinct advantage for the Quayside redevelopment as local people took ‘ownership’ as a source of local pride that regenerated a local identity as much as it did the local economy.

Alongside the redevelopment of the existing urban landscape, the Quayside redevelopment also saw the construction of entirely new flagship buildings, most notably Sage Gateshead, opened in 2004. Sage Gateshead occupies a commanding position on the south side of the Tyne, occupying a plot of previously derelict industrial waste ground. This demonstrates the other side of the successful regeneration of the Quayside, the development of iconic new buildings which have been embraced by the local community, and now represent the place and the area to the region and the world. The active intervention and pursuit of regeneration through the redevelopment of the Quayside has revitalised a previously distressed area of both Newcastle and Gateshead and brought substantial economic benefit. The redevelopment of the NewcastleGateshead Quayside demonstrates the way in which ‘flagship’ developments can be blended with existing, iconic sites, in order to create a vibrant and exciting environment for cultural activity.

The major cultural infrastructure developments – Baltic, Sage and LiveWorks – all benefited from significant philanthropic giving. The initial investment by the public sector and the lottery funders has encouraged major matched funding from local philanthropists and national and local trusts and foundations. While this was initially as part of the capital build campaign, it has continued with philanthropic support with respect to programming, outreach, musical education and funding for the Royal Northern Sinfonia. One disadvantage is that the needs of these cultural organisations has reduced the capacity of other cultural institutions in the region to raise funds.

Sunderland

Despite having a population of 270,000 and being the seventeenth largest city in the UK, Sunderland has, for much of the last 40 years, been regarded as Tyneside’s poor neighbour. Between 1988 and 2008, it saw the closure of all four of its main industries: Shipbuilding, Coalmining, Glass-making and Brewing, losing more than 30,000 jobs out of a workforce of approximately 120,000.

The growth of Nissan and out-of-town call centres did much to reduce mass unemployment but did little for a city centre blighted by low footfall, a poor retail offer (competing with out of town shopping malls) and limited cultural attractions. By 2010 about one-third of the city’s retail properties were empty and the National Glass Centre (NGC), Sunderland’s Millennium Project, was close to financial collapse.

At this point key partners began to take action to regenerate the city through culturally-based initiatives. The University took over the NGC to give it financial sustainability and the newly formed, philanthropically-led charity, the Music, Arts and Culture Trust began to work with the University and subsequently the City Council to develop plans to significantly regenerate the city centre using culture as a catalyst. This involved the establishment of a new organisation, Sunderland Culture, a partnership between the University, the Council and the MAC Trust to be the strategic lead and operator of the city’s cultural transformation.

The Northern Gallery for Contemporary Art was reinvigorated through a relocation to the NGC. The Culture Quarter development under the MAC Trust involves the redevelopment of a group of historic buildings and the construction of a new auditorium as part of a masterplan for the area. These buildings, all used for arts, creative and culture purposes, include theatre, music and dance spaces, galleries, facilities for new cultural enterprises and music and artistic education centres and collectively form the vibrant and creative cultural heart of the city.

The funding for this ambitious regeneration of the centre of Sunderland through arts and culture has come from a number of sources. The two Lottery Funders agreed to commit about £10m to a project that was culturally ambitious, restored key heritage buildings and regenerated a part of the city that had been in decline for over 30 years. Support of approximately £4m, both in cash and kind came from Sunderland City Council. The remaining £6m has come from the MAC Trust, other trusts and foundations and significant philanthropic donations.

Creating places where art and culture can be produced, practiced, delivered and enjoyed is at the very heart of the vision for the Sunderland Cultural Quarter, enhancing the city’s existing flagship cultural venue at the Sunderland Empire. The new facilities will work in concert with the existing venue to ensure that consumers regard Sunderland as a genuine cultural destination. The development of the nighttime economy will both guarantee the financial viability of the associated cultural venues and allow visitors to eat, drink and engage in cultural activity all within the bounds of the Culture Quarter.

The Quarter will be both financially and environmentally sustainable, delivering new employment opportunities and economic benefits to the city, whilst using the revenue generated from the various restaurants and bars to subsidise and guarantee the delivery of high quality artistic content throughout the quarter and will form a new hub both culturally and economically, offering employment, training and volunteering opportunities to people from both Sunderland and the wider region. It will be a place where art and cultural production can take place, where people of all ages and all backgrounds will learn to dance and act and sing and write music. It will act as a magnet for artists from Sunderland and from elsewhere to come to produce and to stay. It will attract hundreds of thousands of people to come and see great art and community art, performances they know they will enjoy and new experiences that can change how they see the arts and culture. It will do all of this in an area, sitting at the heart of the city, that, in its decline, epitomised the downturn in Sunderland’s fortunes over the last decades, but which will now be regenerated and become a symbol of the city’s hope for a successful future.

Stoke on Trent

(by Paul Williams, Chairman of Stoke-on-Trent’s Cultural Destination Partnership)

Stoke-on-Trent is a polycentric, medium-sized city of six distinct towns with a population of 255,000. It boasts an unusual convergence of geography, character and cultural identity, and as a product of the industrial revolution, it is overwhelmingly the formerly dominant ceramics industry that continues to impose an evocative and distinctive landscape and indelible identity onto the region. The way the city and neighbouring borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme have developed historically is at the heart of the many issues that impact the region today. As Darren Henley, Chief Executive of Arts Council England comments “the transformative, reviving power of creativity is particularly palpable in places such as Stoke-on-Trent which have experienced the trials of post-industrialisation but have decided to rebuild the narrative of their place in a large part through investment in the arts and culture.”

The Prince’s Regeneration Trust’s successful £9 million restoration of Middleport Pottery with financial support from public funders, private donors and philanthropic benefactors provides an exemplar for the city’s approach to culture-led regeneration. Now managed by the Re-Form Heritage charity, Middleport continues to act as a catalyst for the entire regeneration of the town of Burslem and the wider city, stimulating economic growth in the area and encouraging tourism and enterprise.

Following its acquisition of the 10-acre Spode pottery factory when it closed in 2008, the council committed to preserve and regenerate the heritage site’s Grade II-listed buildings and support new-build developments to revitalise the town of Stoke. Supported by national funding bodies and public and private investment, the rebranded Spode Works continues to expand through the addition of improved visitor facilities, and is home to the Spode Museum alongside artists’ studios, developed in collaboration with the arts organisation and educational charity, ACAVA. Also included are a digital incubator, exhibition galleries and creative workspace, complemented by a boutique hotel, restaurant, tea-room and shop.

For many years, the New Vic Theatre was the only regularly funded arts organisation in the region. Working in consortium with local authorities, community organisations and other partners, they secured Arts Council funding to join the Creative People and Places programme. ‘Appetite’ has subsequently sparked a latent enthusiasm for the arts among diverse groups, and also made a significant contribution to regeneration projects delivering a richer cultural life throughout the region. Appetite’s contribution to a growth in cultural ambition was integral to Stoke-on-Trent’s bid for UK City of Culture 2021. The bid expressed the newfound confidence of the city and its future as a centre of art, craft and contemporary culture. The bidding process brought the city’s cultural organisations together to reflect on the region’s remarkable assets and to define a cultural vision for both the medium and long term. With strong leadership from the city council, both Staffordshire and Keele universities and enterprising artists, the city’s cultural infrastructure and capacity was reinvigorated.

B Arts and the British Ceramics Biennial joined the New Vic on the Arts Council‘s national portfolio and now benefits from sustained funding and support from foundations such as Paul Hamlyn and Esmée Fairbairn to develop cultural opportunities which deliver economic, social, health and education impacts. The existence of high-net-worth individuals linked to the city provides support for many arts projects including the YMCA’s Creative Youth Minds scheme through the Bertarelli and Denise Coates Foundations. Cultural businesses such as AirSpace Gallery, Claybody Theatre and Restoke, often cited as exemplar projects of people-led change, have grown in many of the city’s disused industrial buildings with new forms of investment and by operating in an entrepreneurial way. With the city council pledging £52 million capital investment to support the city’s cultural infrastructure, hotel development and the refurbishment of the Potteries Museum & Art Gallery to create a new home for its famous Spitfire plane, additional funding was secured from locally-owned corporate partners alongside successful Cultural Destinations and Heritage Action Zone bids.

The cultural anchors referenced above, together with representatives from the Cultural Education Partnership and Cultural Forum have engaged with the Stoke Diaspora to constitute a new network of organisations with expertise in culture, industry, education and civic leadership. ‘Stoke Creates’ will act as a landing platform for resources that aim to support and up-scale the city’s cultural development.

About the authors…

Paul Callaghan CBE is a philanthropist and the chair of the Leighton Group. He also chairs the Sunderland MAC Trust, a catalyst for the development and promotion of music, arts and culture within Sunderland. The Trust seeks to leverage the digital revolution to engage local people of all ages and backgrounds into dance, poetry, literacy, singing and art.

Paul Williams is the chair of Stoke-on-Trent’s Cultural Destinations Partnership, a vehicle to connect local organisations working in art, tourism and culture. It utilises this network to promote the city’s rich year-round cultural offerings. He was formerly the Head of Programmes at Staffordshire University Business School.

Launch of The Black Funding Networking

November 17, 2020 by Beacon Admin

Launch of the Black Funding Networking

Guest Blog from Pauline De Souza

On 10th November 2020, a new philanthropy organisation made its presence known. Modelling itself on the crowdfunding system created by The Funding Network, the Black Funding Network supports social enterprises dealing with social mobility, racial equity, arts and cultural advancement, education and youth services.

The founders, Erika Brodnock, Angela Ferreira, Yvette Griffith and Patricia Hamzahee, have their backgrounds in corporate finance and management, having set up their own organisations and worked with social enterprises.

Angela and Yvette have additional cultural experience. Angela has worked in senior broadcasting roles with Channel 4 and BBC. Yvette is co-chief executive of Jazz Refreshed and has spent many years working in the theatre.

Despite Covid-19 and the second national lockdown in the UK, they were determined that the Black Funding Network event would go ahead.

The live online event was hosted by The Funding Network’s Josh Babarinde, who introduced three organisations to the philanthropic funders on the call: Sister System, With Insight and Elevated Minds. Each organisation had 10 minutes to pitch leaving time for the audience to ask questions.

Sister System helps young girls in the care system between the ages of 13-21. These care-affected girls are supported by experienced ‘big sister’ mentors who have been let down by the care system.
With Insight offers a mentoring system to help black students to apply for top universities
Elevated Minds provides young people and their parents with alternative strategies to improve their mental health and wellbeing.

Each organisation was hoping to secure £6,000 from the funders on the call. In fact, they succeeded in raising £10,000 each, thanks to incredibly generous pledging.

The attendees were also entertained with the music performance by Ayanna Witter-Johnson, British cellist, singer, songwriter and composer, who opened the MOBO Awards Pre-Show in 2016.

Future events combining funding opportunities and live performances are being planned.

For more information, please email info@blackfundingnetwork.org.

It’s time to talk differently – and more carefully – about philanthropy

September 27, 2020 by Beacon Admin

It’s time to talk differently – and more carefully – about philanthropy

Written by Dr Beth Breeze, Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent, UK

A new book on philanthropy is always cause for celebration. The serious study of philanthropy is still in its infancy in the UK and we need much fuller bookshelves to spark informed conversations about the role, purpose and consequences of private giving in contemporary society. Paul Vallely’s new book is a substantial addition to our growing store of knowledge in both senses of the words – it’s over 750 pages long and extremely comprehensive in scope as the subtitle makes clear, ranging from Aristotle to Zuckerberg and almost every conceivable topic and issue inbetween.

I was happy to provide an endorsement for the book jacket and stand by my view that Paul’s work is a service to all of us who are involved in this fascinating sector, whether as donors, grant-makers, fundraisers, charity leaders or scholars. But I am troubled by popular reactions to the extract published in The Guardian under the click-bait headline ‘How philanthropy benefits the super-rich’, and I think we need to carefully consider the consequences of stirring the populist pot about philanthropy at a time when we clearly need more, not less giving. The article was widely read and shared on social media, and I could not find a single example where this involved someone offering a ‘push back’ to the suggestion in the headline that philanthropy is inherently problematic. Instead, the Twitterati highlighted the juiciest quotes that depict philanthropists as power-hungry elites and tax-dodging plutocrats, offering commentary such as:

@OliPerkins2 – “I am so glad I don’t work in this horrific business anymore. This article hits the nail on the head.”

@joti2gaza – “The myth that charity = good has to end”

@hugetinymistake – “Philanthropy is a racket; just tax the rich”

@SelenesMuse – “stop letting the rich feed their egos pretending to [give]”

I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot because I’m currently writing a book called ‘In Defence of Philanthropy’. Making the argument that philanthropy is not always problematic, and that donors are not always power-hungry egotists (or to phrase it the other way round: that philanthropy can be worth celebrating and that some donors give humbly and well) is not a sensible strategy for anyone who cares about book sales and social media approval.

But I am driven by three concerns:

(1) the lack of nuance in how people talk about philanthropy, implying donors are homogenous and unvarying in their motivation, practices and impacts;

(2) the tone of generalised cynicism in public discourse about philanthropists which assumes giving is a self-promoting ruse that requires debunking by sophisticated realists; and

(3) a belief that donor-bashing hurts those who benefit from the kindness of strangers (which actually includes pretty much all of us) far more than it affects the donors themselves.

Here’s a very brief overview of why these concerns matter:

Critics – especially the knee-jerk kind found on social media, rather than thoughtful scholarly critique – vastly underestimate the complex reality of contemporary philanthropy. Typical misconceptions they repeat and reinforce include the suggestion that philanthropy is the preserve of the rich, when in fact the collective value of mass giving far outweighs the combined sum provided by famous ‘mega-givers’; the assumption that the primary goal of philanthropy is to help the poor and tackle inequality, when in fact philanthropy operates on a much broader canvas and there is no historical precedent or legal obligation for all philanthropy to be redistributive; and the belief that American concerns about over-dominant big giving are universal when for the rest of the world the opposite problem looms far larger – there is not enough philanthropy which results in a chronically under-funded and subsequently underpowered non-profit sector. So discussions need to start from a recognition of the complexity and variety inherent in philanthropy as it exists across the world and within each society, rather than taking aim at a single unrepresentative idea of ‘philanthropy’.

Why does generalised cynicism affect anyone other than philanthropists, who – one might say – surely have enough money and privilege to grow a thicker skin? Because charities cannot run on goodwill alone: they need income, including private donations, to do their work and serve their beneficiaries. That work includes producing public goods that benefit us all, like medical research and a cleaner environment – clearly we need all hands on deck to find a vaccine against COVID-19 and to tackle the climate crisis. Charities also respond to quotidian needs that are not met by the state or market (such as hospice care or re-homing unwanted pets) and needs that are better met by a voluntary response (such as running helplines and supporting the bereaved). Charities also exist to make life better in myriad ways, for example by running village halls, Scout groups, amateur sports, arts and music organisations. All these charities need income, and fundraising is not easy at the best of times. Most charities already existed in a fragile state, lacking secure, sustainable funding long before the pandemic dented their ability to raise funds whilst simultaneously often increasing demand for their services. The fundraising ‘ask’ relies on the belief that gifts can make a meaningful difference, that ‘being philanthropic’ is appreciated and valued by wider society, and that the donor will feel good about doing good. Generalised attacks on philanthropy and insistence that donors should be critiqued and never cheered, undermine drivers of both philanthropic asking and giving. Those seeking funding for good causes have little else to give supporters other than thanks and praise. UK charity law forbids any substantive benefits for donors, including interference in the political process, so fundraisers rely largely on the power of intangible motivations, such as cultivating the ‘warm glow’ and ‘helpers high’ that drives much other-oriented behaviour.

No one has to give away any amount of post-tax income: it could all be kept for private consumption or to exacerbate inequality by passing it on to children. Private jet owners and spoilt heirs may be less socially valuable than philanthropic efforts but they are far less likely to provoke public passions or reams of acerbic comment on social media. Anger and sarcasm directed at donors might feel cathartic but it often turns out to be friendly fire that hits fundraisers, and the collateral damage to broader civil society is felt by us all. But shouldn’t we “speak truth to power” even if we end up paying the price in decreased donations? Only if those words are appropriate. Despite all the armchair philosophising about“ true” donor motivations, the research shows that donors typically give because they want to help make something good happen, and are often far less interested in being praised or seeing their name up in lights than is commonly assumed. But donors have not signed up to become public scapegoats for everything that people feel is wrong about how society is currently organised (and about which donors may be equally concerned) such as growing inequality, the need to reform taxation, inadequate public spending, the need for better pay and protection for workers, civic disengagement or simply how irritating famous rich people are.

Whilst the connection between possessing wealth and having power is obvious, the suggestion that using some of that money for public benefit necessarily aggravates the situation is an unhelpful generalisation. Philanthropy comes in a huge variety of forms, of which policy-oriented philanthropy is only one niche interest, which might be better to lose its tax-exempt status rather than tar all philanthropy with the same brush. There has been a slippage from noting that in some instances philanthropy can be a way of wielding power, to the statement that ‘all philanthropy is power’ which is at best an odd exaggeration given how much philanthropic funding is spent on mundane and prosaic goods and services (such as the examples of fundraising charities given above). Given the reality that some people do åinherit or create vast wealth, what would those critics prefer happens next? If they are in favour of confiscating it, they should make that case. Otherwise their stance risks looking like mere grandstanding – calling out big donors in order to publicise their own ‘keener’ moral sense. Unless the critic is demonstrably personally committed to radically re- structuring the economy and society, their public handwringing about philanthropy is more about securing public recognition as a moral person. Twitter users enjoy highlighting what they see as egregious cases of virtue signalling without realising that, ironically, is a type of virtue signalling itself.

So let’s by all means keep writing books and having debates about philanthropy (that’s pretty much what my job entails!), but let’s do it in a way that avoids perpetuating unhelpful generalisations, encouraging cynicism and making it harder to keep good causes afloat. Unless we cultivate appraisals that take as their starting point that philanthropy is a legitimate and potentially positive activity, we need to take ownership of the implications of undermining the philanthropic impulse by demoralising donors and frustrating fundraising.

Read Paul Vallely’s response here

Read our co-founder, Cath Dovey’s response here