Guest voices

Philanthropy Right Now: The Power of Community – by Marie-Louise Gourlay

September 14, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Philanthropy Right Now:

The Power of Community

^{‘Philanthropy Right Now’ is a periodical column for Beacon Collaborative by Marie-Louise Gourlay, Managing Director of Europe for The Philanthropy Workshop.}

The power of community: a topic that’s risen time and again over the last 18 months. The twin pandemics of Covid-19 and the profound racial injustice that spurred the Black Lives Matter movement simultaneously tore us apart and flung us together.

Who were we when shut in our homes, hooked to the news? Was our community our household, our neighbourhood, our country? Or had our community expanded – a single community bound by a global pandemic, with a collective urgency to tackle the world’s issues?

For me, the notion of community has always been more a feeling than a tangible set of parameters. Dictionary definitions all feel overly passive, such as “the condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common”. It’s precisely that passivity that we wrestle with when we think of philanthropy. When does a shared attitude or interest progress from being passive to being active? And it’s fair to say that community can and does influence behaviour change.

Since Covid began, we’ve turned to one another in ways never seen before – seeking and sharing advice, advocating for trust-based approaches, and even informing one another about strategies which have proven successful – and those which have failed. It led me to question whether community is only formed out of necessity; when each of us needs something from one another in order to survive. With greater urgency, and an increased openness to the value of cross-border learnings and solutions, it seems this necessity has allowed the door to philanthropic collaboration to creak open.

Knowledge comes in many parts – and community is one of those parts. It’s often not the obvious interactions that are most fruitful – but those that are serendipitous, or fleeting, that lead us to explore, to challenge, to question and to innovate. For when we stop innovating, we become redundant. The last 18 months have taught us that having a community of ever-evolving thoughts and ideas, of support and of critical challenge, truly is irreplaceable.

At The Philanthropy Workshop, whilst our community was previously a long-standing, strictly enforced ‘no pitch zone’, increasingly members are seeking opportunities to co-fund, putting aside their individual strategies and recognising the role that collective action can play in multiplying impact, as well as acknowledging the power which must be ceded to enable that.

Long-term behavioural shifts take time. But the hope is that the movement towards collaboration and away from isolationism will continue in the direction that it has started. Reflecting further, I wonder whether the active shift we ultimately make will take philanthropy from being a community to being a movement, in order to achieve the changes we seek in the world.

We flourish when we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. We should be asking ourselves not only what we gain, but what we contribute. For there is a place in philanthropy for everyone.

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

4 ways charities and donors can collaborate better

September 2, 2021 by Beacon Admin

4 ways charities and donors can collaborate better

^{This article was written by Becky Cackett for Beacon Collaborative. Becky works as a Prospect Development Manager within the UK philanthropy sector.}

During the pandemic we saw philanthropists truly step up and show solidarity with charities. We also saw big changes to the way funds were donated, and the number of grant-giving trusts and foundations established in 2020 hit an eight-year high.

But the fight isn’t over. The pandemic has had a significant impact on the income of charities at a time when people need them more than ever. Data from NHS England, for example, confirms that 2020 was the worst year on record for cancer waiting times in England and saw the lowest number of people starting cancer treatment for 10 years.

To address the significant challenges ahead we seriously need to consider how to strengthen the relationships between charities and philanthropists, in a way that meets the needs of both. Here are four areas of improvement with actionable recommendations for charities and donors alike:

1. Develop a shared understanding

A 2019 report commissioned by Barclays Private Bank identified an ‘us and them’ gap between philanthropists and charities as a key barrier to philanthropic giving. In addition, it showed that 23% of HNWIs outside of the US feel they do not have enough knowledge or experience with charities to make a larger gift.

It’s clear that we need to overcome this disparity so we can attain the most effective outcomes for our beneficiaries. Charities sometimes take an approach which can feel transactional, when they should be getting to know the philanthropists they partner with more holistically, understanding their individual skills, interests and motivations.

Philanthropists should feel comfortable being more inquisitive. There are often many opportunities for you to learn more about the organisations you support, including meeting senior staff from within the organisation and visiting their services to deepen your understanding.

Donors: Utilise the resources charities provide to understand the issue in greater depth.

Charities: Dedicate more time to getting to know your donors and what drives them.

2. Know that communication is key

Feeding into the above, we know that developing trust between philanthropists and charities is vital to forming strong and impactful relationships, which will ultimately have the best outcomes for those we support.

In the Barriers to Giving report, 25% of HNWIs cited a ‘lack of control over how the money is spent’ as a barrier to giving. Openness and communication can help to build trust and to overcome obstacles like this. Philanthropists shouldn’t be afraid to ask questions about how their money will be spent, or how a charity is financed or governed. Charities do not want to lose donors and will often be willing to go above and beyond to address any issues.

In return for this openness, donors deserve transparency and accountability from the charities they choose to support. It is incredibly important to feedback to your donors when something is not going well.

Donors: If you’re not sure about something, ask the charity for clarity.

Charities: Don’t hide your failures from donors – they appreciate and deserve honesty.

3. Understand the importance of flexibility in funding

As Clare Wilkins from New Philanthropy Capital says, Covid-19 has been a ‘testing phase’ for the charity sector. During this phase donors have given more flexibly to charity than ever before.

Now that it’s clear the effects of Covid-19 will endure for years to come, it is vital that philanthropists continue to stand with the organisations they support and help to secure their future sustainability. For donors to do this effectively, charities need to help them to understand the value of unrestricted funding, which allows money to be spent when and where it is needed most.

But charities also need to reward the trust which has been placed in them by supporting philanthropists’ desires to be change-makers, and there are many opportunities to be part of innovative work if this is their preference. Beyond this, charities would benefit from identifying where individual philanthropists have skill sets which would complement specific projects.

Donors: Consider if you can support organisations more flexibly, for example by funding core costs.

Charities: Educate donors on why core funding is so integral to your work.

4. Be proud of what you’ve achieved together

This year, for the first time in its history, The Sunday Times Giving List saw donations from the UK’s top 200 philanthropists reach an amazing £4.3bn. In the UK, philanthropists and charities achieve so much together, but celebrations of these successes in the media are relatively rare. This contrasts with the US media where these stories are commonplace.

Philanthropists may feel understandably reticent for their stories to be shared in the general media. Charities can support this by opening their own external communication channels and telling these shared success stories in the most appropriate way for both sides, with a focus on the transformative impact of a large gift.

It’s so important that charities and philanthropists feel able to shout about their successes together. This encourages others to give, and to have the opportunity to experience the fulfilment that comes with developing a deep relationship with a charity and its people.

Donors: Seek to inspire! Look for opportunities to share your giving stories.

Charities: Tell the stories of donors, not just beneficiaries; develop giving role models.

Final thoughts

In the past 18 months, charities saw an increase in support from philanthropists when other income was severely reduced. But how can we sustain this momentum? Together, charities and philanthropists should nurture their relationships with open communication, honesty, and understanding, and celebrate when they’ve achieved something together. Let’s never forget that we’re working towards a shared goal.

^{Becky Cackett works as a Prospect Development Manager within the UK philanthropy sector. She has worked and volunteered for some of the UK’s largest charities spanning a wide range of different causes. You can connect with Becky here.}

Giving effectively: can data play a bigger role in decision-making?

August 27, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Giving effectively: can data play a bigger role in decision-making?

^{This article was written for Beacon Collaborative by Sarah Thelwall, founder of MyCake. See bottom for more about MyCake.}

It will come as no surprise to anyone reading this article that it can be challenging to decide the best way to help a cause that you believe in. Determining what you want to support is quickly followed by the problem of resource allocation: the questions of where, who and how.

The social sector – charities, social enterprises and community groups – has traditionally been queasy about using metrics to assess, rate and compare organisations. As such, there is often little data to enable this. For philanthropists more familiar with a world of metrics and analysis, this can be a frustrating experience – and may be holding back some from giving.

Things may be beginning to change. Data is more available. A growing cadre of trustees and managers are more interested in data and indicators as they double down on impact. If more analysis is possible, what indicators should we look for if we want to give effectively?

Perhaps the most critical issue to understand when deciding to support an organisation is whether it is viable: are they likely to still be here in five years? Is the operating model inherently riskier or less sustainable? If we can establish whether an organisation is resilient, we can then consider the effectiveness of the organisation’s activities or the impact and effectiveness of philanthropic giving. So, how can data and indicators help us to do this?

How to identify sustainable organisations

The sustainability of an organisation reflects many factors, from the quality of its leadership team to the strength and reach of its relationships. It also includes the merits of its operating model. The Arts Council and the Bechtel Foundation are funders who have explored what resilience looks like in practice, but there remains no single definition of organisational sustainability. As a result, the social sector lacks a set of commonly agreed metrics that we can use to assess sustainability and resilience.

We think this needs to change.

Research by MyCake is now exploring the role of metrics and whether they can help us understand resilience. Using data from a large-scale sample of social sector organisations, we have found the following metrics are particularly beneficial when evaluating operating models:

Turnover – what is the five-year trend: growth, stasis, decline or volatility? Do trends reflect or differ from the sub-sector the organisation operates in?
Contribution to reserves (net margin, or profit by another name) – what is the five-year trend? A negative contribution to funds is relatively common, as organisations may be investing in some years. Negative contributions should prompt questions about why (planned or unplanned?) and whether they are likely to continue.
Working capital or liquid unrestricted net assets (LUNA) – low or negative reserves levels are a warning flag. When looking at reserves levels on the balance sheet, double-check to see whether any bricks and mortar assets are described as restricted or unrestricted: accounting errors are common. For charities, covenants may restrict the sale of buildings, limiting the repayment of any debt. Figures for net current assets are also helpful: a negative amount may indicate the risk of trading insolvently.
Staff costs – this is commonly the most significant single area of expenditure in an organisation . In our latest research, we’ve demonstrated a correlation between proportionately high staff costs and an increased risk of closure.
Income concentration – income diversification is a familiar strategic goal in the social sector, albeit with diminishing returns. Organisations with a high proportion of turnover from a single client or single income type are likely to be less resilient. Measuring income concentration gives us an indication of this risk.

Funders and philanthropists may find that these metrics are enough to inform decision making. We think there is room for more detailed analysis and financial benchmarking in the social sector, in contrast to the private sector in the UK and the nonprofit sector in North America. MyCake’s specialist area of expertise is financial benchmarking: we collect and analyse data on over 40 income and expenditure types, alongside a suite of 30 metrics and KPIs. Our research programme aims to refine these and apply them across different places or sub-sectors. We have developed forecasting tools – a risk rating and a resilience rating – which improve the ability of the sector to identify financial fragility and address it before organisations fail.

Understanding how philanthropic funds can make a difference

We have argued that data and metrics can help identify and select organisations that are most likely to be sustainable. The next step for funders and philanthropists might be to understand better how their support contributes to the organisation’s sustainability.

A starting point is to ask how the organisation will use any support. One way of thinking about this might be:

Capital – money used to buy or refurbish physical assets such as buildings and land or improve it through activities such as setting up energy generation (solar, wind etc.)
Delivery of services – funding the costs of ongoing activities which sit at the core of the organisation, such as services to a particular community
Innovation – monies used to undertake research and development that will lead to next-generation solutions and activities

The outcomes of the three purposes are notably different. Supporting the acquisition of capital assets will likely support the delivery of activities and impact over multiple years. However, asset purchase may not translate into more revenue or better outcomes: the organisation may not have the skills or expertise required. The business model for a community café may deliver social impact but little revenue.

A contribution towards the cost of service delivery is likely to have a clear link with outcomes and impact. Further analysis can help understand whether the funds cover current service provision levels or enable extended provision. Both are useful as the demand for services often exceeds the funding available.

Few organisations have the funds available to cover the cost of innovation, just as few can generate the surpluses on regular activity that enable capital purchases: philanthropic support can make a real difference in such cases. The challenge is how to appraise proposals and test the assumptions that underpin the business model. Are suggestions for long term innovations that are high risk and high return? Or tweaks to existing activities which are lower risk but potentially lower return?

Any decision necessitates a fit between the philanthropic interests and what the organisation perceives it needs: mission drift or developing programmes to match the money on offer are a known problem in the social sector. Again, metrics and indicators can help. We can use metrics to evaluate the health of an operating model and the uses to which philanthropic funds could be put in that model. We can establish a sense of what ‘normal’ levels of progress are across a sub-sector, size of organisation or place, and the role of philanthropic funds within those groupings. Financial analysis won’t make a decision about whether philanthropists and funders should support an organisation or a cause. Still, it will help them to understand what value they add and what role they can play.

An increasing role of metrics and indicators

We are seeing an increasing interest in using data, metrics and indicators to understand the social sector: its capacity, financial health and, ultimately, its contribution and impact. The financial analysis traditionally undertaken in other sectors is increasingly being used to inform local and national government strategy. It is also being used to evaluate the impact of public and private grant funders and as an input to operational and business planning in individual organisations. As the sector focuses more on delivering impact, data and metrics are helping all stakeholders to make better decisions.

^{What is MyCake?}

^{MyCake was founded in 2007 to provide data to support business development consultancy to nonprofits around the area of trading and earned income development. Since then, we’ve built a series of data tools focused on financial data on non-profits that support data-enabled strategic decision making. Our tools and insights are increasingly used to support strategic decisions across the sector by central & local government, grant funding organisations and philanthropists who commit significant funding to achieve specific social and environmental outcomes. To find out more about our suite of key financial metrics and online services, visit www.mycake.org}

Philanthropy Is About More Than Giving: People Must Work To Change The Foundations

July 19, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Philanthropy Is About More Than Giving: People Must Work To Change The Foundations

^{This article was written by Mike Schiemer – Find the original here –}^{Republished for Beacon Collaborative with author’s permission.}

The best people know when to give to those who need it and lift others up in times of need. However, philanthropy doesn’t work only through generous acts. It must provide real and long-lasting change that makes the world better. These lessons are what true philanthropists like Donald Friese and many others know intuitively.

PHILANTHROPY IS MORE THAN GIVING

Those who think philanthropy is measured by dollar amounts often don’t understand the true nature of this process. Philanthropy needs to be transformative and restorative. It must bring something new to the life of those experiencing it and give them new hope and a better lease on life. It doesn’t just give somebody a meal for a day but strives to make it easier for them to eat for the rest of their lives.

Beyond that, it should try to change things at its core level to make the world a better place. True philanthropists look to shake expectations and help people understand suffering. Universal empathy drives true philanthropists and makes them driven to succeed in many unexpected ways, particularly for those who want to improve their community and their nation.

But how can the average person ever reach these lofty levels of expectation? It may seem unfair to expect most people to have that drive and that energy. However, those who truly care about philanthropy do have those drives and do what they can to help change the world and make it stronger. Here are a few different ways you can achieve this goal, beyond writing a cheque to your favourite charity.

HOW TO GIVE WHERE IT MATTERS

Thriving as a philanthropist requires a deep understanding of what causes matter to you and taking time to focus on them. Too many people don’t take the time to follow these steps and end up struggling to make things better. Donating money is nice but just isn’t enough for this situation.

As a result, it is important to understand many factors before you try becoming a philanthropist. Remember – you need to be willing to work hard and have a true vision about how you want to change the world. Take these steps, and things should go easier for you:

Know What Matters to You – Have you spent the time figuring out what causes are important to you? If not, you need to think long and hard about what matters to you as a person. We all have beliefs, and your philanthropic goals should always align with them for a better chance of success.
Find Foundations With Real Experience – Try to give to groups that work to lift people and transform their lives and the power that surrounds them. Those groups focused on real change and sacrifice are the best options for those who want their philanthropy to truly matter.
Give Your Time and Energy – Simply donating money to a foundation is rarely enough for a true philanthropist. Most will also spend time in the trenches, working in difficult situations, teaching people how to take care of themselves, and endlessly working to better things.
Champion the Best Causes – The world is struggling, and it is only possible to change things at their core by starting at the bottom. Champion those causes that you feel have the best chance of reaching this goal, and you can transform so many lives for the better with ease.

If you ever feel like your efforts are not enough or are not satisfying your needs, it is time to reconsider your approach to helping others in need. Philanthropy shouldn’t just be donating the same money to the same groups without thought. You need to be constantly upgrading your approach to make it more effective.

FINDING GREAT PHILANTHROPIC GOALS

Anyone interested in philanthropy needs to spend time researching the options that make the most sense for them. By seeking out those foundations and giving opportunities that truly change the world, it is possible to truly help those in need. It is best to listen to your heart in this situation. Taking into account how you feel and what feels normal and moral will make this process simpler for you. This will all help you in your journey of first-rate philanthropic deeds. It will feel great to give back!

Follow Mike Schiemer on Twitter.

Philanthropy’s essential role in tackling the Youth Crisis.

July 8, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Philanthropy’s essential role in tackling the Youth Crisis.

Youth crisis – Young people have been amongst the worst hit by Covid. The demographic is now suffering its second ‘once in a generation’ economic shock. Instrumental in supporting young people during this period have been youth charities like The Prince’s Trust. Kat Farram, Director of Philanthropy at The Prince’s Trust, discusses why philanthropy is proving so crucial to the charity’s work with young people.

What is the Youth Crisis and why does it matter?

Even before Covid hit, we had reason to be concerned about the wellbeing of young people in the UK. Overall, the pace of generational growth in household income – widely taken by experts as a benchmark of day-to-day living standards – has slowed. The present crisis has only intensified the instability that characterises the lives of so many of the UK’s most disadvantaged young people.

All of our lives have been disrupted by the pandemic, but the socioeconomic impact is being felt disproportionately by young people who are suffering their second ‘once in a generation’ economic shock. After the last financial crisis, youth unemployment increased three times more than it did for older age groups, leaving over a million young people out of work by 2011. Today, young people account for three in five job losses experienced since last March. Sadly, we still haven’t seen the worst of the unemployment crisis.

A report by The Prince’s Trust and the Learning and Work Institute warns that young people will increasingly bear the brunt of the disruption to the labour landscape, with youth unemployment set to climb further still throughout 2021.

Unemployment at the start of a young person’s working life can leave a scar that lasts a lifetime. We already needed to ensure the sustainability of work available, to future-proof jobs and apprenticeships and to adapt our national skillset to meet new opportunities in digital and green industries. Covid-19 has simply accelerated the opportunity to address social mobility and tackle the skills deficit our country faces. If we don’t, there’s a cost to all of us. Indeed, the economic cost of youth unemployment in terms of lost national output is forecast to be £6.9 billion in 2022 alone.

How is philanthropy helping The Prince’s Trust to respond to the crisis?

Philanthropy accounts for roughly 30% of The Prince’s Trust’s income. The long-term support of our Patrons means that The Trust can make a sustainable difference to the futures of tens of thousands of young people every year. In the past year, the loyalty of our supporters has granted us the flexibility to adapt our services in response to the pandemic – taking our support online in response to social distancing measures, for example – to ensure we could maintain a strong system of support throughout the crisis.

There are several ways philanthropy has enabled us to be there for young people:

1. Hyper-local investment

If we are to help young people find sustainable work, we have to tailor our youth work to regional labour landscapes. Many of our philanthropists invest in regions that they have a connection to, from major cities like London, Manchester or Birmingham, to rural and coastal communities. Not only do they provide much-needed investment, but their personal affinity for the community challenges us to adapt our provision to local needs and opportunities.

One example is our partnership with Hans Bishop and Kate James, who have invested in our work in the Solent. Hans and Kate, who respectively bring a wealth of experience from backgrounds in biotech, edtech and at the Gates Foundation, partnered with us to improve the prospects of more young people locally and grow partnerships with employers in sustainable industries, like healthcare, as well as other sectors at the heart of the Solent’s labour market. This will place us in better stead in the aftermath of the pandemic, as we diversify the opportunities for young people beyond retail, tourism or hospitality. Our relationship with Kate and Hans is testament to the power of the advisory relationship that can come from philanthropic partnerships.

2. Intensive interventions for the hardest-to-reach

The Prince’s Trust believes that a successful society relies on each of its citizens having a stake, but this is only possible if those facing the greatest disadvantage are given the opportunity to succeed. As increasing numbers of ‘work-ready’ young people struggle to secure a job due to fewer vacancies, those already on the fringes of society are being pushed further from the jobs market. To combat this, our brilliant youth support workers provide intensive support to those most-in-need, helping them to develop the confidence and skills to succeed in the long-term.

Philanthropists fund the majority of our work with the hardest-to-reach young people – such as those who are homeless, care-leavers, young offenders or those living with learning difficulties. Generally, philanthropists are more willing to invest in these more intensive interventions, which require more time and care to build-up, than funders from the public and corporate sectors. Amongst our supporter-base, there is a consensus that a foundation of confidence and skills is critical in order to take steps towards employment, despite the additional cost this may incur.

3. Investment in infrastructure and sustainability

Increasingly, philanthropists, trusts and foundations are investing in behind-the-scenes projects to strengthen our organisation’s infrastructure and maximise impact. This investment approach to grant-making, which awards funding to strengthen the long-term effectiveness and build the capacity of non-profit institutions, ensures we are able to reach the right demographics of young people, ensure the efficacy of our programmes and secure further funding through more meaningful representations of our impact.

Investments such as these bring immense value to our organisation and help us to fortify in the long-term at a time when so many third-sector organisations have found themselves at risk.

How can you help address the youth crisis?

Organisations working with today’s young people have never been more needed. Amidst a challenging fundraising landscape, strategic investment from philanthropists is key to helping us and others meet the needs of young people. Over the past five years, philanthropy has grown to become one of our dominant income streams. But beyond financial support, philanthropy provides us with creative partnerships that strengthen our organisation by challenging it.

Youth charities empower young people – often the most vulnerable young people – to pursue opportunities that may otherwise be out of reach. A collaborative approach that involves the government, support agencies and employers really is critical to giving the most disadvantaged young people the best start in life. Philanthropy is an essential part of that collaboration. As we start to look beyond the pandemic, we must offer all the support we can to help every young person become an independent, fulfilled and economically active member of society.

To find out more about The Prince’s Trust’s work and how you can help, please contact Kat Farram, Director of Philanthropy, at kat.farram@princes-trust.org.uk

To learn more about the philanthropy landscape, explore the Beacon Blog.

4 ways tech can help first-time donors

May 10, 2021 by Beacon Admin

4 ways tech can help first-time donors

In the past few years there’s been an evolution in the way that we make charitable donations thanks to developments in data and tech.

According to Enthuse’s quarterly research study, 67% of the public say they are likely to give in the next 12 months. With this large percentage of people making a commitment to give, it is possible that we will see more first-time donors embarking on their philanthropic journey.

Navigating philanthropy and identifying the right causes to give to can seem like a minefield when you’re first starting out. But with the explosion of data and tech-powered tools, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel.

Here are four ways data and tech can help you to get started on your philanthropy journey.

1. Empowering anyone to be a donor

Philanthropy has often been considered an activity for the rich and retired, but the rise in digital giving platforms means it’s now for everyone. Platforms like Just Giving, Virgin Money Giving and Localgiving make it easier than ever to donate money digitally, while many charities also have their own online fundraising technology.

These platforms are also responsible for a shift in the way we define philanthropy. While many of us might think of philanthropy only as donating large sums of money regularly, digital platforms are making giving more accessible to everyone – no matter their budget.

Alliance magazine reported that in 2020 giving grew by 10% in the US, thanks to an increase in small donors. Perhaps we will see the UK follow this trend. With online donation platforms philanthropy can be big or small, frequent or infrequent, and most importantly, it can reach all new demographics.

New giving platforms can allow you to dip your toe in the water by starting your giving at a lower, more manageable amount and increasing as and when you feel comfortable to do so.

2. Identifying the right causes to support

When you start your giving journey, it can be difficult to know what causes you should focus on. Do you support the causes closest to your heart? Or do you look at the data for funding shortfalls in specific areas?

Luckily, there are now a number of platforms and services that can help you decide where to direct your focus. For example, Brevio – a grant-building platform – has a range of research tools which let philanthropists set up their own fund and gain real-time insights on where the current funding need is.

Corporate giving platforms like Benevity, Neighbourly and Semble showcase charitable projects that are looking for funding. And for comprehensive data on current funding needs, New Philanthropy Capital has developed a data dashboard that captures the locations most affected by Covid-19, as well as the level of demand for charities across the UK.

Using innovative solutions like these can show you which areas are currently underfunded and/or overwhelmed with demand for their services, ensuring you support places which will most value your contribution.

3. Providing better oversight & accountability

In recent years, there’s been a strong trend towards greater transparency and accountability for charities. In the US, platforms like Give Well and Charity Navigator provide detailed ratings on charities by assessing data on their programs and impact to help users find trustworthy charities to support.

Locally, the Charity Commission’s online register provides detailed information on all charities registered in England and Wales, including financial details. You can find similar information on charities in Northern Ireland via Charity Commission NI and via OSCR for Scotland.

If you’re thinking about supporting a particular charity, it’s always good to do your research beforehand and these digital registers make it much easier.

Feeling comfortable that charities are using your contributions responsibly is one of the biggest factors for a good giving experience. Refer to the Charity Commission’s website for clear and direct financial data about charities you wish to support.

4. Tracking the difference you make.

Better data is providing greater opportunity to track the impact that your funding has made. Organisations like 360 Giving are leading the way in sharing data within the third sector. Through collecting and publishing data on what was funded, 360 Giving has established the #OpenGrants movement. This helps philanthropists see where their funds are going and where funding might still be needed.

From the charity perspective, So Give is another platform that aims to measure impact across the sector. So Give helps charities track their own impact and provides information on what impact your funding actually makes. For example, their research shows exactly how many children are able to be treated with anti-malaria medication based on the amount of money donated to the Malaria Consortium.

Ambiguity around the impact of your donation can lead to unfulfilling giving experiences. Exploring independent services like 360 Giving and So Give will allow you to draw the cause and effect line for your philanthropy.

What does the future hold for tech in philanthropy?

This is just the start of how tech and data can help first-time donors. The tech space is evolving and innovating at a rapid pace. The explosion of new platforms for digital fundraising, corporate giving and grant applications is helping to build an online ‘funding marketplace’.

While usually it is up to charities to search for and apply for available funding, newer approaches are emerging which will give charities the chance to showcase their projects and their funding requirements to potential funders. This inverse approach lets potential funders and first-time donors be more proactive in their giving by seeking out charities they’d like to partner with.

Perhaps in the future we will see the funding marketplace develop a ‘Netflix-style’ solution where users can browse and fund projects based on common interests and categories. With tech and data pushing the boundaries in the third sector, first time donors have an abundance of tools at their fingertips to help them get started on their philanthropic journey.

About Brevio

Brevio empowers the charitable sector to achieve more. We automate the initial steps in grant applications, to free up hundreds of millions of pounds every year in administration. We’re a matching platform that links funders and charities based on the impact they both want to achieve. Find out more about Brevio here and follow @hellobrevio on Twitter for updates.

5 times philanthropy helped change the course of cancer research

February 17, 2021 by Beacon Admin

5 times philanthropy helped change the course of cancer research

Philanthropy touches every area of British society. It is difficult to walk down a street without seeing a school, park or community facility which has been funded – at least in part – by a philanthropist. In few areas is this more clear than the field of medical research.

To celebrate the contribution private resources have made to this field, Cancer Research has compiled a list of 5 times philanthropy helped change the course of cancer research.

This article was written by Joanna Lewin, and was originally published by Cancer Research on World Cancer Day 2021. Access the original here.

– Written by Joanna Lewin –

Behind every one of our researchers is a supporter with a vision – whether that researcher is exploring cancer’s real-time in vitro evolution, studying how COVID-19 affects people with cancer or understanding why cancer develops in certain organs and not others.

This World Cancer Day, we’re reflecting on how far we’ve come in 19 years as the world’s largest charitable funder of cancer research. Put simply, we would never have got this far or made such giant leaps in our understanding of the disease had it not been for the generosity of our supporters. Here, we take a look at five times philanthropy led to transformational findings that are helping to save lives.

1. Co-funding Europe’s largest single-site biomedical research facility, the Francis Crick Institute

In November 2016, we invited a group of philanthropists to watch the Queen unveil the Francis Crick Institute in London, to which they had collectively contributed £100m. Since then, scientists at the institute – Europe’s largest biomedical research facility under one roof – have exceeded all expectations.

They’ve answered thousands of questions relating to the fundamental biology of human health and disease – from finding patterns in cancer evolution to revealing how HIV develops drug resistance and uncovering the fundamental biology of the novel coronavirus.

And they have just set up a COVID-19 vaccination hub to join their successful testing programme. The Crick’s work spans the full breadth of the research spectrum, from fundamental human biology to translational science, which takes discoveries in the lab and develops them into life-saving treatments. And through the ongoing generosity of our supporters, we’ll continue to facilitate vital scientific discoveries at the Crick for many years to come.

Who helped make it happen?

Two of the Crick’s founding philanthropists are James and Gemma Reynolds. They donated to our ‘Create the Change’ campaign to build the institute almost half a decade ago and recently pledged another five years of support.

“When my wife and I were invited on a tour of the Crick construction site, we walked through the labs and said to each other, cancer will be defeated in this building,” he says.

But the Crick is not just a building, it’s a living organism and adapts to its environment. Less than a year ago, nobody knew about COVID-19 and now the Crick’s researchers are leading on testing and research. And they did it at short notice, working day and night. It’s been truly amazing to see the impact the institute is having on society.”

2. Understanding cancer evolution in real-time with TRACERx

In 2014, we launched a new project that would help propel our understanding of cancer evolution in ways never imagined before. The nine-year, £12.5m study, named TRACERx (Tracking Cancer Evolution through therapy [Rx]), is the first ever longitudinal, large-scale study of lung cancer evolution, which means researchers can examine the complex process of cancer evolution as it occurs in vitro over time.

Thanks to sustained philanthropic funding, TRACERx researchers can now predict whose lung cancer will return after surgery by detecting tumour DNA in their blood and who may need additional therapy after surgery to help prevent the disease returning. They can also develop tests that use machine learning to predict clinical outcomes at the point of diagnosis. And they can use AI to chart regions in a tumour where immune cells are highly concentrated – vital knowledge, as it turns out, for predicting the outcome of someone with lung cancer.

Who helped make it happen?

As this unique project caught the attention of enthusiastic scientists up and down the country, so too did it capture the imagination of a group of visionary philanthropists who saw its abundant potential. Many of them still regularly donate to the project, with newer supporters joining along the way. Vanessa Marsland is a member of our Catalyst Club giving circle and was inspired to support TRACERx after hearing lead author and Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician, Professor Charles Swanton, speak at an event.

“I was very impressed by the project’s scale. I’m not sure other charities or organisations could support such a large initiative over time,” she says. “I’ve come to see over the years that it’s the long-term studies that will help more people survive cancer. The need to invest in cancer hasn’t gone away, but givers have been temporarily distracted by COVID-19. We need to look to the future and make sure progress can continue.”

3. Developing better treatments for people with pancreatic cancer with PRECISION-Panc

Survival for pancreatic cancer remains stubbornly low. Due to its tricky location and vague symptoms, it’s difficult to detect so is often diagnosed at a later stage when treatment options are limited. So, while survival is increasing for many cancers, for pancreatic cancer 10-year net survival is still just 1% – exactly the same today as it was in the 1970s. But researchers at the Cancer Research UK Beatson Institute in Glasgow have been working hard to buck this devastating trend.

In 2017, we committed £10m to a new study called PRECISION-Panc, which is accelerating our understanding of the disease to inform better, more personalised treatments. The most recent development came in October 2020, when the team announced they’d identified molecular markers that can predict which tumours will respond to certain drugs that target damaged DNA. The team took this discovery forward into a clinical trial late last year.

Who helped make it happen?

One of our longest-standing philanthropic supporters, Mike Jackson, has backed our work in Glasgow and Edinburgh for 14 years, and by doing so, has given rise to vital research like PRECISION-Panc.

“I’ve always been keen to support research in Scotland,” says Mike. “It’s important for the economy and the country that we continue to develop knowledge-based work. We have a history of advances in medicine and centres of excellence like the Beatson that deserve our support.”

Initially supporting bowel cancer research, Mike later decided to back research into pancreatic cancer.

“The disease is deadly because it’s so complex, and difficult to detect early and treat. To see signs of progress in understanding and treating pancreatic cancer is rewarding. You feel satisfaction that in some small way your support has contributed to the difference and progress being made by the researchers.”

Thanks to Mike and others like him, not only can researchers now study tumours in unprecedented detail to make more informed decisions around treatment, they’re also using what they’ve learnt to develop new treatments for people with pancreatic cancer.

4. Answering the riddle of tumour specificity

We know that different DNA mutations can cause different types of cancer, despite the fact that faulty genes can be found in nearly all our cells. For example, errors in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are known to have a specific role in breast and ovarian cancer development – but why not in other organs? This long-standing mystery is now being unravelled by the SPECIFICANCER team through the Cancer Grand Challenges initiative – a global funding platform, founded by us and the US National Cancer Institute.

Led by Professor Stephen Elledge at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, SPECIFICANCER researchers are carefully mapping our cells’ cancer drivers – molecules that are known to cause cancer – and their specificity to different tissues.

By scrutinising healthy cells from the eight tissue types that give rise to the most common cancers – breast, bowel, lung, skin, kidney, liver, brain and pancreas – the team hopes to identify whether certain genes are only active in different parts of the body. They’ll also introduce mutations into hundreds of genes to see which ones drive cancer in the different tissue types. By doing so, they hope to provide a complete overview of which genes and molecules play a role in driving cancer in different parts of the body.

Who helped make it happen?

This work is co-funded by us and the Mark Foundation for Cancer Research. The New York-based philanthropic organisation was set up by Alex Knaster in honour of his father, Mark, who died of cancer in 2014. In 2019, they donated £10m to the SPECIFICANCER project – their largest gift to a UK organisation to date – and Alex has been a passionate champion of the Cancer Grand Challenges initiative ever since.

“The Mark Foundation’s broad portfolio of cutting-edge research aimed at transforming the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer has exposed us to a wide spectrum of ways to achieve breakthroughs in cancer,” he explains. “Our Cancer Grand Challenges partnership expands our ability to support bold, large-scale science that will create positive change for patients and their loves ones, which is at the heart of our philanthropic mission.

By working together to support the SPECIFICANCER team’s efforts to understand why certain gene mutations cause cancer in some organs, but not in others, we’ll achieve even more impact in accelerating the pace of discovery and advancing our understanding of cancer to ultimately benefit patients and families everywhere.”

5. Unveiling crucial insights about the impact of COVID-19 on people with cancer

Due to the pandemic, many people with cancer have seen vital surgery and treatments delayed and been subject to harsher shielding measures, due to an assumption that someone with cancer will be at higher risk of the virus than someone without the disease. There’s also been uncertainty among health care providers about how to prioritise care for people with COVID-19 and a range of cancers.

Now, one team led by Cancer Research UK clinician scientist Dr Sheeba Irshad at King’s College London has provided helpful evidence to cut through this uncertainty. The SOAP study shows that people with a solid tumour cancer will mount a similar immune response to the virus than people without cancer, meaning they should clear the virus in the same way.

But while the findings provide reassurance to those with solid tumour cancers, they unfortunately also show that people with blood cancers face more difficulty in shaking off the virus. For some, it took 90 days after the first signs of infection – around five times the average recovery. The news, while deeply concerning, does mean that care providers can now make more informed decisions about how to care for people with COVID-19 and different types of cancer.

Who helped make it happen?

For Maria Garcia and her husband Gonzalo, who have been supporting Dr Irshad’s work for several years, the importance of her latest research was plainly clear.

“This research helps to relieve some of the challenges people with cancer have been facing,” she says. “Thanks to Dr Sheeba and her team, people with solid tumour cancers now know that they don’t have this extra worry. For people with blood cancer, the news is more difficult, but at least now we know the risks, and knowing means opening the door to further investigation and prioritisation.

Being able to help shine a torch in a whole world of darkness, in our own tiny way, has been incredible for our family. It’s fascinating that Sheeba was able to adapt her work to run in parallel with COVID-19 research, but at the same time, not leave behind people with cancer. Hats off to her!”

Funding the Future – What we’ve learnt and where we’re heading next

February 12, 2021 by Beacon Admin

Funding the Future – What we’ve learnt and where we’re heading next

Guest Blog by Geraldine Tovey, Membership, Communications and Events Manager at London Funders.

Much like the Beacon Collaborative, London Funders strives to enable our members to not just give, but to give well. In this guest blog, we’re covering how we’ve supported London’s communities during the Covid-19 crisis, what we have learnt so far, and (perhaps most excitingly) what we’re doing next.

Before we get into the details, here’s a bit more information about who we are and what we do… London Funders was established 25 years ago to bring together the capital’s many local, regional, and national charitable foundations (many of which were established by philanthropists) with other key funders such as local government, housing associations and corporate givers.

Now 170 members strong, we’re uniquely placed to enable funders from all sectors to be effective. We’re focused on collaboration – convening funders to connect, contribute and cooperate together, to help people across London’s communities to live better lives.

Back to the current situation, like many other organisations our normal work came to a dramatic halt in March 2020, and a completely new programme was created almost overnight. Our first step was to draft a funder statement: ‘We Stand with the Sector’. Originally published on March 13th 2020, over 400 grant-makers have now committed to show an understanding that many services provided by civil society organisations will need to adapt because of the pandemic. Signatories have also promised to be financially flexible and to take a conversational approach to their relationships with grantees.

During the second national lockdown in November, a further 150 funders signed a renewed and reiterated version of the statement, which placed an emphasis on reflection and listening to civil society organisations post-crisis. Throughout 2020, we heard first hand from voluntary organisations that both ‘We Stand With the Sector’ and ‘We Still Stand With the Sector’ provided much-needed reassurance at a time of great uncertainty, and we were delighted that they were referenced in Civil Society’s charity sector highlights of 2020.

The statement was only the beginning. Over the past year we have been coordinating funders from across sectors through the London Community Response – an unprecedented funder collaboration. So far, £46m (and counting) has been given away by 67 organisations (many of whom received generous donations from high-net-worth-individuals), and funders are currently assessing applications for fifth round of funding.

Focusing initially on crisis support grants for food, protective equipment and digital resources, the most recent wave of funding aligns with the London Recovery Board’s post-Covid missions. Renewal grants are being distributed by funders to ensure that the capital’s voluntary sector is well equipped to tackle the longer term economic, social and wellbeing consequences of the pandemic.

Although the size and scope of the London Community Response is unique, our processes were heavily influenced by previous learning. In 2017 we brought together 18 different funders (including national government) and coordinated a £4.8m grants programme in North Kensington following the Grenfell Tower Fire. This is a very different crisis, but the principles of listening, proactive outreach and recognising inequality have remained the same. Our report on the North Kensington funding programmes – ‘The Possible Not the Perfect’ has been an incredibly useful re-visit and a reminder of what we can achieve together.

What have we learnt so far? To summarise in three words: data, data, data. The £46m given via the London Community Response is undeniably a large sum, but London is a city of 10 million people and has the highest poverty rate in UK. To ensure that money has been spent well, we’ve been working with our friends at DataKind UK to analyse where the funding is going in real time, and to ensure that it aligns with needs at a local level.

Plenty of our members are not involved in the London Community Response, and we’ve been making sure that they are equipped with everything that we think they need to know. Our Covid-19 Resource Hub has expanded rapidly over the months and we send a weekly policy briefing to our members – the ‘Funder Five’. In addition, we have held hundreds of (virtual) meetings, intelligence calls and events since March on Covid and non-Covid topics alike (we haven’t forgotten about Brexit…).

We’ve also been helped hugely by partners from across the sector who have far greater knowledge of their what their communities need, and who have worked tirelessly to make sure that marginalised voices are heard. It has been obvious that Covid-19 is not a leveller, and instead has shone a light on just how unequal our city (and country) is. The best early decision made by the London Community Response collaboration was to proactively fund six equity-led organisations to act as a critical friend and provide outreach to smaller, traditionally underfunded groups.

Although the crisis is ongoing, we’re mindful that eventually the pandemic will end and that the funding sector needs to have a clear vision of what the future should look like. On this note, we strongly encourage all grant givers and philanthropists to read our latest report – ‘After the Storm’.

Based on interviews with 17 of our members, the publication identifies three key challenges for funders in the medium-term. They are – the expectation of a second wave of demand as unemployment rises and recession takes hold; navigating the sector and identifying gaps, overlaps and commonalities; and the financial precariousness of the sector and what that means for maintaining social infrastructure. We hope that this publication and our upcoming briefing on ‘What London Needs’ will assist funders in navigating the difficult decisions ahead.

We are also going to host our first-ever Festival of Learning in the spring. Building on the success of our autumn Camference, we will look at how grantmakers, commissioners and philanthropists can support communities and the capital to not just survive, but to thrive in a post-Covid world. This will cover not just traditional grantmaking, but other ways of giving back too. We’ll be saying more soon, and do get in touch if you would like to join us for these lively and thought-provoking conversations. And of course we’re looking forward to hearing more insights from the Beacon Collaborative in the upcoming months.

See more of London Funders at their website

27 Stories of Success from the Environmental Funders Network

December 1, 2020 by Beacon Admin

27 Stories of Success from the Environmental Funders Network.

The Environmental Funders Network (EFN) has released an illustrated booklet of case studies to showcase pathways into environmental funding.

The 27 stories of network members, including individuals and trust and foundations, demonstrate the transformative potential of philanthropy. This work not only showcases pathways to new and increasing philanthropy for those that wish to support environmental causes but also offers valuable insights into all philanthropic efforts and best practice in giving.

The stories in Environmental Funders’ publication also show that green philanthropy works and has a unique role; it can be used to take risks, provide charities with long term support, fund projects that other sources of funding would not touch, and test out ideas that can be scaled up. The grants in these stories ranged from £5,000 to millions of pounds, and in each instance, their support had a transformative effect.

There is also an interesting page on “I’m new to environmental philanthropy, where do I start?” where contributing members have given advice to newcomers, explaining their philanthropic roadmap and top tips.

This includes:

“It is not necessarily about the amount you give, it is about where those funds will make the most difference. Even modest grants can have a huge impact in certain areas. Talk to other funders who can share advice on how funds can be best used.”

And

“Work with the best people you can find. Gather positive minds. Your first step might fill you with fear, but your next may make you smile with quiet satisfaction. Later, privately, you can glow with pride. You did your bit to make the world a better place.”

Advice which is not cause specific but is applicable to any philanthropic effort.

Overall, the Environmental Funders booklet establishes that:

Even a comparatively small amount of funding can have a tangible impact, particularly when it can be used to lever in much larger amounts from other sources.
Sustained support over many years can ensure that a project not only gets off the ground but can grow into something much bigger and more successful than originally envisaged.
Funding collaborative initiatives between different organisations working towards a common goal can significantly increase their collective impact.
Collaborating as funders to increase the investment in a particular initiative can help to get it over the line – and build confidence among other funders to donate more.
Compelling successes have resulted not only through funding specific projects or initiatives, but – perhaps more often – through providing unrestricted or core funds to an organisation to allow staff the flexibility to spend them in the most strategic way.
Just because a particular issue receives very little funding now doesn’t mean it isn’t important, and funding can enable work that helps to demonstrate just how critical it is.
Place-based initiatives are much more likely to be successful if they work with, and ideally directly benefit, local communities to ensure their buy-in and support’.
Taking a gamble on an ambitious or innovative approach will at the very least generate valuable lessons learned – but could pay huge dividends.

The report can be found here and a recording of the launch event with actor Sir Mark Rylance, Springwatch presenter Gillian Burke, and three of the funders whose stories feature in the publication – Kevin Cox, Sophie Marple and Ben Goldsmith can be found here.

EFN’s mission is to increase financial support for environmental causes and to help environmental philanthropy to be as effective as it can be. Its members are funders, mainly based in the United Kingdom, who pursue these aims at home and overseas. Funders interested in joining EFN or finding out more about the network should contact EFN using the contact form at www.greenfunders.org.

What kind of society do we want to build? One which opens up to philanthropy and allows people to be generous.

November 30, 2020 by Beacon Admin

What kind of society do we want to build? One which opens up to philanthropy and allows people to be generous.

Helen Bowcock PhD OBE DL – www.hazelhursttrust.org and www.aakss.org.uk

Article originally published in the Philanthropy Impact Magazine, Nov 2020 Issue

With the current challenges in charity funding, being open to generosity in different forms may prove a better investment than taking a narrow view. The often misunderstood concept of philanthropy needs to be interpreted in an inclusive way as an open system which relies upon people of very varied financial means.

The COVID crisis should provide evidence of why philanthropy matters and why we need to take it more seriously than ever before in a society open to generosity. One cause for optimism during these bleakest of times has been a voluntary spirit and desire to help others, which emerged right from the start of the lockdown. Admonished to stay at home and protect the NHS, many instead found ways to help other human beings rather than stay still, immobilised by public mandate.

For example, in my own town, a group of residents — many already affiliated with local charities — had organised themselves into a help force before the NHS issued its appeal for volunteers. When the national programme proved ineffective in satisfying the demand to give time, they continued as before to deliver shopping, connect with people living alone and marshal support for the food bank. Some of them had experienced their own means of earning a living disappear abruptly but they still found the energy and motivation to be generous with their time and resources.

When choir practices came to an abrupt end, the leader of my choir persuaded members to make our own individual recordings of his harmonised version of Carol King’s You’ve Got A Friend and then, with help, worked night and day to synchronise 276 voices for release on YouTube. With the theme of isolation in mind, he canvassed opinion and selected the Women’s Aid Live Chat service as a destination for the donations we gave willingly in return for participating. And once the final recording was distributed within our own networks, the £10,000 target was rapidly exceeded and over £100,000 had been raised at the last count. The shared social experience of singing together had taken on a new and more meaningful nature.

Perhaps none of this sounds remarkable. Choirs often fundraise and many charities, including food banks, necessarily rely upon the conscience of local residents. This was, however, a remarkable time in which there were unprecedented constraints upon giving voluntarily, but people chose to overcome them and gave themselves permission to care for others.

If it was not abundantly clear already, then it should be clear now, that the state could not fulfil every need and this was particularly evident within the system of health. The desire for active participation in raising money to provide for others was perhaps best exemplified by Captain Tom who has raised over £30 million pounds even though his chosen cause was the NHS itself.

The charity in which I serve as chair of the trustee board has, for the first time, launched an emergency appeal which has far exceeded its initial target, attracting our largest single donation as well as multiple smaller gifts of very varying amounts. These donors can be assured that their chosen organisation, which delivers highly specialised pre-hospital emergency medicine, has continued to deliver a full service throughout the crisis when many other medical treatments were withdrawn.

As a self-governing charity, it was founded by local people who sought to fulfil a gap in medical provision when there was neither the political will nor budget to resource it from statutory funding. Guided by the principle embedded in British society since the mid-twentieth century — that medicine should be free at the point of delivery — the charity was enabled by the much older tradition of philanthropy.

So, in answering the question about the kind of society we want to see, it would seem appropriate to consider what the experience of the COVID crisis might teach us about the nature of philanthropy and generosity. The examples given so far demonstrate that, despite the most unusual constraints, people still find ways of taking action and of giving greater meaning and value to money through the addition of their time, skills and networks.

Perhaps one lesson from this crisis is that the so often misunderstood concept of philanthropy needs to be interpreted in an inclusive way, as an open system which relies upon people of very varied financial means. As Martial Paris of WISE-Philanthropy Advisors stated in the most recent Philanthropy Impact Magazine ‘You don’t need a fat wallet to be a philanthropist — philanthropy is everyone’s business’.

This matters for several reasons. If, as could so easily be interpreted from the media, philanthropy is assumed to be about extreme wealth, then this lets large segments of society off the hook. A quick glance at recent press coverage about philanthropists gives the impression of a rarefied world of ‘disruptive tech billionaires’ or of celebrity — a world beyond the reach of most. A report from The Beacon Collaborative found that even people who can be defined as ‘high net worth’ consider that they may not be quite rich enough to meet a perceived threshold to give away some of their wealth. We cannot afford the perception that this is a luxury market. Whilst those people with the highest levels of wealth should certainly be encouraged to give more, this does not mean that philanthropy and generosity is their exclusive domain.

The second reason that “philanthropy is everyone’s business” is that the COVID crisis has revealed a reserve of time and money that people are willing to give away, but their good will and commitment need to be maintained. There is probably significantly greater untapped potential and good reason for charities to treat everyone as potential donors. Early tentative interest in volunteering or a modest donation can often precede increasing support over the longer term, if met with appropriate stewardship. So often the motivation for trusteeship is to give something to society, regardless of personal financial means. With the current challenges for charity funding, being open to generosity in different forms may prove a better investment than taking a narrow view of philanthropy or assuming that paying trustees is somehow in the interests of the sector.

One further reason for a broad-minded view of philanthropy is that now, more than ever, we need to be very clear about its role, and government needs to be honest about where state provision starts and stops. There are significant areas of health and medical services delivered by charities, including hospices and air ambulances, and the extent of fundraising for NHS institutions is somewhat concealed by the illusion that our health system is funded entirely by the state. So let’s give credit where it is due and acknowledge the collective value of the many people who give time, money and networks, not because they are all very rich but because they believe in a cause. And let’s invite everyone to the party so that philanthropy becomes a normal part of life in a society in which generosity is appropriately acknowledged and respected.

HELEN BOWCOCK PHD OBE DL – TRUSTEE OF THE HAZELHURST TRUST & CHAIR OF AIR AMBULANCE KENT SURREY SUSSEX

Following an early career in information technology, Helen co-founded a software company specialising in advanced information security systems and served as a Director during a period of rapid growth and significant investment.

Following the sale of assets in the company, she co-founded The Hazelhurst Trust, a grant-making trust with a focus on education and research. She has written several reports making the case for philanthropy in the UK and was awarded an OBE for services to philanthropy in 2015. She grew up in the North East and is a graduate of Durham University. More recently she completed a PhD at the University of Kent and has served on the boards of several not-for-profit organisations in the South East, notably the University of Surrey and Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex where she is Chair.

What my book really says – Paul Vallely

October 9, 2020 by Beacon Admin

What my book really says –

Paul Vallely

Modern social media is a double-edged sword. It alerts us quickly to the presence of something new. But its very speed also creates a tendency towards knee-jerk responses rooted in our preconceptions and prejudices. Often it cuts out the need to actually consider the evidence. So it was with some concern that I heard that social media responses to my new book Philanthropy – from Aristotle to Zuckerberg had been the subject of unhappy comment among some philanthropists and philanthropy advisers after Twitter comments provoked by an extract from my book in The Guardian.

Book extracts, too, can be double-edged. They draw a new work to the attention of a large number of people. But they are extracts, and not a précis. The Guardian selected around a quarter of one chapter from among twenty chapters in the book. They chose the parts which they thought would interest their readers from Chapter 16 which is headed: Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy? It’s worth noting the question mark at the end of that title. Many of those who have criticised the extract sloppily supposed that this was an assertion rather than a question. They also rather naively assumed that the extract was representative of the whole book. This was rather like reading the extract in the Jewish Chronicle and concluding that the whole book was about Jewish philanthropy, or the extracts in The Tablet, Church Times or the Quaker magazine The Friend, and concluding that the book is overwhelmingly religious.

The book, which is the product of six-years’ work, is far more than any of that. It seeks to celebrate the successes of philanthropy and to critique its failings in the hope that better philanthropy would be the result. It began, thanks to the untrammelled generosity of a philanthropist, Sir Trevor Pears. He funded the first two years of my research after realising that there had not been a major history of English philanthropy written for more than half a century. But it soon became apparent that a new book could not confine itself to England. It needed to begin with the ancient Greeks and Hebrews, who very early on each developed distinctive approaches to philanthropy – which have continued as threads throughout the way that philanthropy has developed over the past two millennia. And it needed to take on board that philanthropy today – particularly in its huge blossoming over the past two decades – is now essentially a global phenomenon which cross-fertilises internationally.

The intellectual framework for the modern history of English philanthropy was conceptualized in 1905 by the Unitarian socialist Benjamin Kirkman Gray. It was then adopted by the authors of the subsequent major works on English philanthropy W. K. Jordan (1959) and David Owen (1964). Both men, and many more recent writers on the subject who have followed in their footsteps, unquestioningly accepted Kirkman Gray’s notion that the first 1,000 years of Christian charity had been haphazard, ineffective and focused primarily on saving the soul of the donor – and that it was only after the Reformation that Protestant charity had made philanthropy more rational and systematic. My book shows this is entirely wrong.

Mainstream historians like Eamon Duffy have written authoritatively to overturn the previous orthodoxy that Catholicism was moribund and unpopular among ordinary people in England before the Reformation. Specialists on late medieval and early modern charity, including Natalie Zemon Davies, Brian Tierney and Brian Pullan have shown that it was economic forces, following the Black Death, not religious ones, which brought about key changes in the attitude of the rich towards the poor. But, for reasons my book lays bare, this new consensus among mainstream historians has never found its way into histories of philanthropy. Yet something vital was lost from philanthropy at that point in history.

What the book concludes is that modern philanthrocapitalism – and Peter Singer’s philosophy of Effective Altruism in which it is rooted – is the inheritor of that sixteenth-century deficiency. Indeed, it has exacerbated it. This became clear to me after conversations with Cheryl Chapman of City Philanthropy, the philosopher and priest Giles Fraser, and Archbishop Rowan Williams. They all deepened my doubts about what Chapman had called a “philanthropy by numbers”, which she insisted “doesn’t add up” – but which increasingly dominates modern philanthropic thinking. That created a determination in me to seek out a philanthropy which is less impoverished and reductive – and, instead, returns to a healthier and more holistic vision of philanthropy as a reciprocal relationship between donor, recipient and wider society.

The Greeks, and more especially the Romans, saw philanthropy primarily as a device to strengthen social relationships. Aristotle said its main purpose was to improve the moral character of the giver. But mainstream Greco-Roman philanthropy was in practice more venal; it was about improving the status of the giver, courting popular approval and consolidating political power. It was essentially a top-down process. The Jewish vision was altogether more religious. God had a special love for the poor and therefore all believers ought to imitate that generosity. Giver and receiver were bound together with God and the entire community in a mutual relationship.

For its first thousand years philanthropy was dominated more by the Jewish than the Greek vision. It contained an element of social justice. The rich had the obligation to assist the poor materially. But the poor had a duty to pray for the rich. It was much more of a two-way – or even three-way – process. Then came the Black Death. The demography and economy of Europe shifted – ushering in the decline of feudalism, the growth of trade and towns, the rise of the merchant class, the monetization of the economy and the first stirrings of capitalism. Philanthropy changed too. A tide of vagrant beggars swept the continent, provoking the rich to develop a much more hostile attitude to the poor. A new idea arose that the poor were in some way to blame for their own poverty.

It was a notion which was to shape philanthropy for the next six centuries – through the Elizabethan Poor Laws and Victorian charitable moralising, through the innate superiority of Andrew Carnegie, to surface in the top-down approach of some philanthropists today. But the alternative tradition has persisted too, weaving in and out of the history of philanthropy. Growing out of the Hebrew sense of community, it passes through medieval Christian charity, and resurfaces in Enlightenment altruism with agitator philanthropists like the penal reformer John Howard, and the anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce. It is there in the five-per-cent philanthropy of Octavia Hill, and in the new Lanark factories of Robert Owen who put into practice Rousseau’s teachings on nature and nurture with the conviction that if you created the right environment those who lived and worked in it would become good, rational and decent individuals. It is there in the Quaker capitalism of George Cadbury and Joseph Rowntree who changed their business methods to fit their philanthropy (where many philanthrocapitalists today do the opposite). And it survives among those modern philanthropists who eschew top-down methods and instead seek to develop a model of mutual respect and partnership between giver and recipient.

Philanthropy – from Aristotle to Zuckerberg charts all this. On route it considers philanthropy and religion, philanthropy and the state, and philanthropy and the private sector. It celebrates the staggering successes of philanthrocapitalism and critiques its serious shortcomings. It explores the globalisation of philanthropy typified by the work of Bill Gates, whose giving has saved the lives of millions, and yet who has made some mistakes along the way. The book looks at those philanthropists, like Gates, who have learned from their mistakes and those who have not.

It examines the phenomenon of celebrity philanthropists – from Audrey Hepburn to Angelina Jolie, Bob Geldof to Bono, who stand as modern figures in the tradition of the activist philanthropy of Howard and Wilberforce. Interestingly the first man to be called a philanthropist in English was not someone who gave away large sums of money but was the prison reformer John Howard who instead dedicated his whole life to improving the world’s prisons and tackling infectious diseases – one of which killed him.

The concluding chapters look at the relationship between philanthropy and politics, both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Chapter 16 considers the relationship between philanthropy and democracy. On the one hand it illustrates the democratic deficits of philanthropy, looking at issues of accountability, power, taxation and asks whether – despite the extensive system of checks and balances built into the regulation and administration of charities – present systems of tax relief on giving require reform. But that chapter also looks at the way that philanthropy can strengthen democracy by helping empower civil society organisations which mediate between the individual and the state and market. Many of today’s Big Givers follow Andrew Carnegie’s philosophy of “philanthropists know best” but others, by contrast, are aware of their responsibility for and accountability to civil society. It was Carnegie, incidentally, who set the template for the shift of 20th century philanthropy away from the relief of poverty and towards activities like the sponsorship of the arts and elite educational institutions.

Each chapter of the book is followed by an interview with a contemporary philanthropist or thinker. They include Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks; Jonathan Ruffer; Naser Haghamed of the world’s biggest Muslim charity, Islamic Relief; John Studzinski, Archbishop Rowan Williams; Lord David Sainsbury; Sir Bob Geldof; Sir Trevor Pears; Rajiv Shah president of the Rockefeller Foundation; Ian Linden, formerly of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation; Sir Richard Branson; Chris Oecshli of the now spent-out Atlantic Philanthropies; Professor Ngaire Woods, Dean of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government; Patrick Gaspard, president of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations; Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, chair of the Wellcome Foundation; and Sir Lenny Henry and Kevin Cahill of Comic Relief.

Together with the main text, the interviews each explore a contemporary dimension of the historical story. They examine philanthropic choice, motivation and accountability. They cover the relationships between philanthropy and art, business and the state. They contrast the advantages of “Giving while Living” against the strengths and weaknesses of philanthropic foundations. They scrutinize various philosophies of giving. They look at those philanthropists who support climate change activists – but also those who fund climate change-denying lobbyists and think-tanks. They consider the relationship of philanthropy to political power, the place of philanthropy in the global economy and the democratisation of philanthropy through crowdfunding and other new avenues.

Towards the end, the book examines the philosophy of Effective Altruism – of which so many modern philanthrocapitalists are enthusiasts. It lays out the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach. Then it sets out how philanthropy can recover its lost soul by combining the strengths of the Greek and Jewish traditions, of the head and the heart, of the strategic and the reciprocal. And it gives practical examples of how the best philanthropy is doing this – by injecting into command-and-control philanthropy the vital qualities of compassion, empathy and humility. At the end of the book an Epilogue on Philanthropy after the Pandemic sets out two visions for the future. One shows how philanthropy may merely acquiesce in the reinforcing of the structures of inequality in today’s society. The other suggests how philanthropy can help make the post-pandemic world a better place.

Given the breadth and ambition of this canvas you can, perhaps, now see why it is enormously frustrating to have this book associated with perpetuating unhelpful generalisations, encouraging cynicism and making it harder to keep good causes afloat. This is especially so when it is critiqued by people who have only read a small part of it – and who, despite that, proceed to point out all the things which are allegedly missing even though they are actually covered in this 750-page book in considerable depth.

Those who have actually read the book offer rather a different verdict. David Callahan, editor of the Inside Philanthropy website, has written: “Deeply researched and wonderfully written, this book is much more than a sweeping, erudite history. It is a fascinating exploration of why people give – and a powerful call for philanthropy to do a better job of melding empathy with effectiveness.”

Rob Reich, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, calls the book “a magisterial treatment of the history of Western philanthropy”. He adds: “Paul Vallely has produced the best single volume on the ideas that have shaped philanthropy, the institutional arrangements that have structured it, and the outsized personalities that have marked it. Vallely’s book immerses you in the history of philanthropy with an eye toward informing you about its present-day practices, potential, and problems. Stuffed with astonishing stories and illuminating interviews, this book will be a lasting resource for scholars, philanthropic and NGO leaders, and individual donors.”

And one of the most eminent political philosophers of our day, John Gray, calls the book: “The definitive book on philanthropy – its history, contradictions and future… a deep and probing study of a highly complex practice that is an increasingly powerful force in our world”.

You may, of course, disagree. But I would hope that you would do so on the basis of what the book says – rather than what others tell you it says.

Philanthropy – from Aristotle to Zuckerberg by Paul Vallely is published by Bloomsbury at £30

Read Dr. Beth Breeze’s response here

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

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