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.

Alex Day, Director of the Big Give, writes for Beacon on how match funding is increasingly being used to encourage more philanthropy and as a vehicle for philanthropists to give money away.

Como, Italy c. 100 AD. An Italian lawyer, author, and magistrate named Pliny the Younger receives a visit from his friend’s son. In their conversation, the boy shares with him that he has to travel over 40km to receive his education in Milan as there is not a school in their hometown. 

Moved by his plight, Pliny writes to his influential friend, Cornelius Tacitus, and promises to contribute funds to establish a school if other parents in the local area also give:

“I, am ready to give for the benefit of the municipality, one third of any sum it will please you to assemble… Then agree among yourselves, unite, and draw increased spirit from mine, for I am desirous that what I shall have to contribute shall be as large as possible…”

This is, perhaps, the first-ever documented example of the idea of match funding, and in the words of Quentin Tarantino, “the good ideas survive.”

But match funding as an idea is not just surviving. It’s growing. In the US, for example, 65% of Fortune 500 companies offer a corporate matching donation programme and an estimated $2-3bn is donated through employee matching each year.

The organisation which I run, the Big Give, is the UK’s biggest match funding platform. We have seen tremendous growth in the past 5 years, from raising £9m p/annum on our platform through match funding campaigns to over £25m in 2020. 

Why? Because it works. Match funding is a proven way to encourage more people to give and people to give more. We surveyed over 1,000 donors to ask about their attitudes towards match funding. 84% said they would be more likely to give if their donation was matched and one third said they would give more than they usually would.

Match funding is being applied in a myriad of ways across the philanthropy sector. It has become an increasingly popular mechanism, not only to incentivise philanthropy but also as a vehicle for philanthropists to utilise to make a positive impact. It is my hope that these examples below might inspire you to consider match funding in your philanthropy as a way to achieve greater impact.

Match funding to encourage philanthropy: 

• Government matching:

The UK government regularly uses match funding as a public/private blended approach, such as the UK Aid Match programme run by Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office. Over the last six years, 64 organisations from across the UK have run UK Aid Match projects in 38 countries, helping around 25 million people. 

• Endowment matching:

The “Catalyst: Endowments”, a £36m National Lottery Heritage Fund initiative, closed in 2017. It was set up “to encourage more private giving to culture and heritage, and to build the capacity and skills of these organisations to fundraise from private donors, corporate sources and trusts and foundations.”

The results? According to an independent evaluation from the University of Kent, the fund “literally had a catalytic effect on grantees, who describe the programme as having had a ‘galvanising’ and ‘transformational’ effect on their organisations, including cultural shifts’ in terms of attitudes to fundraising.”

• Corporate matching:

An increasing number of companies offer their employees the opportunity to have charitable gifts matched whether donated directly, through payroll or raised funds. It’s a proven method to build employee engagement and advocacy for the company.

Aviva, which offers up to £1,000 of matching per employee, say “The matching is part of our desire to drive pride in working for Aviva. It’s almost a bonus, a thank you from Aviva, and it makes them feel proud of working for Aviva and gives them a bit of recognition.”

Match funding to disburse philanthropy 

More and more philanthropists are now utilising match funding as a way of disbursing their philanthropy. 

Perhaps the best example is the Big Give where “Champions” can offer to match fund a portfolio of charitable organisations through campaigns which the Big Give runs throughout the year. Their biggest and best-known campaign is the Christmas Challenge but they also run campaigns focused on the environment, child poverty in London in partnership with The Childhood Trust, international and domestic emergencies and women and girls. 

Grant Gordon, Chair of The Childhood Trust, says:

“Match funding through the Big Give has enabled the Trust to deliver valuable resources to our partner charities – improving the lives of young people in London.” 

We are now seeing an increased drive to collaborate within the philanthropy sector. The pandemic has caused us to step out of our silos and work together to support society’s most systemic issues.

Match funding offers a logical way to harness this collaborative spirit by making your money go as far as possible.

One donation; twice the impact.

^{About The Big Give Christmas Challenge}

The Christmas Challenge is the UK’s biggest digital match funding campaign. All public donations made to participating charities via theBigGive.org.uk during the week of the campaign (30 Nov – 7 Dec) will be matched up to a specific amount. In 2020, the campaign raised over £20m for 764 charities. This year over 900 charities will participate. The campaign supports a huge variety of causes.

Match funding is provided by a range of philanthropic organisations, called ‘Champions,’ including the Reed Foundation, Julia and Hans Rausing, the EQ Foundation, Candis, The Childhood Trust, The Hospital Saturday Fund and The Waterloo Foundation, amongst others.

One donation, twice the impact – #ChristmasChallenge21

Alex Day

Director, The Big Give

Alex has spent the majority of his career in the not-for-profit sector. He has worked for a number of international development and humanitarian NGO’s including Tearfund and Medair. He recently completed a one-year secondment to REED as Director of Social Impact.

Alex holds a BA Hons in Business & Geography from Exeter University and MA in Charity Management from St Mary’s University which included a thesis entitled ‘Impact Bonds: The future of disaster resilience funding?’. He is Vice Chair of Excellent Development, an international development charity specialising in water conservation, and lives in Surrey with his wife and young son.