Philippa Charles is Director of the Garfield Weston Foundation. She explains what motivates the family’s philanthropy.

Quick facts

The causes

• Arts and culture
• Education
• Environment
• Youth
• Welfare.

The funding

• Family foundation, created by the Weston family in 1958.
• Focus on causes with a profound and positive social impact.
• Has distributed over £1 billion in charitable funding.

---

How the foundation operates

Has the foundation’s strategy changed over time?

Some things have evolved considerably and yet other things remain wonderfully consistent. It’s a blend, really. Ten years ago the foundation was exclusively a responsive funder, but has developed over the past decade with a more blended strategy, including :

• Actively commissioning research where we identify gaps in provision or sector capability, or if there is something we need to understand better as grant-makers.
• Proactively creating a range of partnership programmes to increase the impact of our work,
• Convening conversations and initiating collaborations where it is sensible to do so.

A lot of the developments over the past decade have enabled us to become more proactive and these are complemented by an ongoing approach which is about being responsive to need. This is a strong part of the family’s ethos, and a key motivator for their giving. The foundation holds the view that those closest to the beneficiaries are the experts in an issue – not the funder – and we respect that specialist knowledge.

Is there a common theme that underpins Garfield Weston’s giving?

When you’re a broad funder, as we are, it can be hard for people to see what the common theme might be, but there certainly is one. The first thing is that our activities must meet a clear need and not be a ‘solution in search of a problem’. They must also be high quality. Need and excellence are the benchmarks. Our activities fall into one or more of what we call our Three Cs. These are Capacity, Capability and Confidence.

• Capacity: This is about funding. It is ensuring that organisations have the funds they need to do the things they do well and that will make a difference. Within this, we appreciate the important role that unrestricted funds play in allowing charities to operate effectively and we pay attention to cost recovery on projects.
• Capability: This is about ensuring organisations have the skills, knowledge, and networks they need to maximise their impact.  We address this through a range of partnerships we initiated, such as the Weston Loan Programme with the Art Fund, the Weston Charity Awards with Pilotlight and the Weston Communicating Climate programme with the Media Trust.
• Confidence: This is about increasing exposure. In addition to funding and skills, a lot of charity progress comes from people seeing value in the charity’s work. With this in mind, we celebrate charities’ work through an awards programme, with winners receiving extra support from the foundation to increase their impact.

All of our activities tend to sit in at least one of those buckets. But the sweet spot is the part in the middle, where we are helping organisations to do all three.

^{Note: Property of Garfield Weston Foundation}

How does the family make decisions about their giving?

The family works very deliberately in a consensus-based way. This works remarkably well. I think this is because they all respect each other’s different areas of expertise and knowledge. So, everybody has a chance to put their perspective across. And because what we’re looking for is impact, rather than spending a predetermined amount of money on a specific cause, there is flexibility in what the family can accommodate.

The trustees are also prepared to give money to things that they are not personally engaged with, but can still see value in. An example of this could be a specific art form in which some of the trustees may not be particularly interested, but they recognise its social value in engaging others and so they think it is important to support. Over and above their personal interests, the trustees focus on need.

Is the foundation ‘hands-on’ with the organisations it supports?

The level of involvement varies depending on the organisation and what they need. We are very conscious of being a responsible funder and we don’t want to create a lot of extra work for organisations simply by being involved. That said, where we can add additional value, we aim to do so. All our staff and trustees are active volunteers in charities or within their community.

We have a strong belief in being hands-on in the sense that it’s important to understand what it’s like to run a charity and to be involved in the governance issues and the fundraising challenges. Our experience in these areas allows us to understand directly the constraints charities face. This informs our approach, which is to be clear, straightforward and transparent.

What was the impact of Covid on your operations?

As we all know, many effective organisations saw their income decimated while demand for their work and services increased. 

In response, the scale of Garfield Weston’s funding increased to a level never before seen in our history. We gave over £95 million during 2020/21. We made sure that we ramped up our giving in line with the growing need out there. Part of this was through a specially-devised £30 million Culture Fund, supporting 100 cultural organisations around the country.

We also did some things that we don’t ordinarily do, like giving money to other grant-makers. Our trustees made a donation of £1 million to the National Emergencies Trust before they launched. Normally we wouldn’t do this because we have direct relationships with organisations who apply to us, but the Covid crisis was a unique situation and we wanted to make sure that small, grassroots organisations had access to funding swiftly – local community foundations played a vital role in this.

We’re also involved with a co-funded partnership with The Fore, for a programme to support BAME-led organisations which are focusing on the most marginalised and disadvantaged. During the pandemic, we all learnt a lot about the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on some members of our society. While Covid was devastating, it did present us with a clear opportunity to rebuild a fairer society.

Advice for philanthropists

What advice do you have for foundations starting out?

For us, what often works really well is to pilot an idea. We’re fans of starting something at a small level, learning from it, adapting our approach and then expanding when we are confident it works. You might have a grand vision, and that’s a good thing, but we find it helps to test different things to inform and evolve your thinking towards that vision.

Also, do what you’re passionate about and what you know about. I get a lot of calls from individuals considering establishing a foundation who are looking for advice. I always say that I’m happy to discuss how we do things, but it is important for them to know that there is more than one way to achieve a goal. We think our approach is effective, and we’re very proud of it, but it’s not the only way. Don’t be afraid to make change happen in your own way.

Andrew and Zoë Law established the Law Family Charitable Foundation in 2011. Since then, the foundation has supported a range of initiatives, from increasing educational opportunities for disadvantaged children to developing peer-support networks for those living with cancer.

Quick facts

The causes

• Education
• Research
• Health

The funding

• Family foundation

---

Principle 1: Philanthropy should do things that the government cannot do

The first principle is that, as a philanthropist, you should pursue something which the government has neither the capacity nor the political will to pursue.

State funding is, at the best of times, pushed to its limits. Many essential services are routinely left without government funding, and the role played by the third sector in picking up the rope here is vital.

However, these organisations predominantly rely on less secure funding streams like project grants and retail donations. Andrew suggests that philanthropists should step up to fill the gap.

An example of this is the foundation’s role as the sole funder (until recently) for Speakers for Schools. Founded by Robert Peston and chaired by Andrew for the past decade, the project brings successful industry leaders back to state schools – often in their hometown – to give engaging talks to students.

According to Andrew, the aim is “to inspire to aspire”, by providing students at state schools with the same access to highly influential individuals as their private school counterparts.

Beyond inspirational talks, the charity has now been able to encourage many speakers to supply work experience programmes through their companies. This provides a chance for students who do not have a family connection to access the same opportunities as those who do.

Andrew says this is a project which would not have been supported if left to the government: “There is no way that the government could persuade 1,200 influential and eminent leaders to give up a couple of hours or half a day of their time for this. The government just doesn’t have access to these networks on an informal basis in the same way as many private philanthropists do. We were able both to invest the money needed and to draw on our existing networks to get speakers interested in taking part.”

Principle 2: Philanthropy should pursue a ‘proof of concept’

The second aspect of Andrew’s strategy is to support new ideas in order to prove that they work. The thinking behind this is that philanthropists are particularly well placed to back smaller, unproven solutions to social problems.

Many small charities have the potential for large scale social benefit, but need initial support from philanthropists to get them off the ground. This often only requires a small donation on the part of the philanthropist.

“If people realise that change can be made with relatively small amounts of personal money, it will lead to more philanthropic money flowing into civil society. Ultimately, you feel inspired to give if you can see that you’re making a difference – it’s just about understanding that new solutions often don’t need much money to start having a real-world impact.”

This principle is highlighted by the foundation’s sponsorship of the Laurus Trust, a multi-academy trust. There are two strands to their work here:

1. Providing schools with better sports facilities and top-level inspirational teaching figures.
2. Oracy (originally named Cicero), a programme to help children and teachers alike to develop effective communications skills and social capital.

This dual approach was still largely conceptual when the foundation supported it, but the funding has now led to measurable results.

“We have witnessed a marked increase in student achievement levels. The trust’s schools have gone from producing an average of two Oxbridge attendees per year to seven this past year. And now that the concept is proven, it has begun self-perpetuating – former students who have attended Oxbridge are coming back to speak at the schools. The universities have also started to get involved with the network. The academic grades were always good enough, the difference is in factors beyond that.”

A key takeaway to the thesis is that state schools need a longer day to be able to offer the breadth of co-curricular activities needed to fully develop pupils’ passions and capital.

By proving that innovative concepts like this can be viable solutions to social issues, Andrew argues that you also open the door to government funding. The thinking is that the government will be far more enthusiastic to invest money into a solution once it is de-risked and they are convinced it will work – and when they realise that only limited monies are needed for huge impact.

Principle 3: Analysing how the UK can boost its philanthropic giving

The third principle is a subsidiary one, designed to support the other two strands of Andrew’s philosophy. The idea is that if individuals can make a change through the first or second principle, then surely we should also be seeking to unlock the full potential of philanthropy in the UK.

Explaining why this is so vital, Andrew cites the vastly higher giving levels in the United States, when compared to the UK. Though there are myriad reasons for this, they all stem from a difference in the perception of philanthropy’s role in society, something reflected in the US’s guidance and legislation around philanthropy.

The UK’s Gift Aid scheme – where charitable donations are increased by 25% by the government – is given as an example of where government policy could stand to improve.

“Gift Aid is a great idea. People who want to give to charity are spurred on by the notion that their donation will be amplified by government. However, if we can simplify the process for donors by removing some of the end-of-year paperwork related to Gift Aid, they will be more likely to make use of the scheme.”

To look deeper into how we can improve philanthropy in the UK, alongside a raft of other issues, Andrew created the Law Family Commission on Civil Society in 2020. The commission – being run by and alongside Pro-Bono Economics – undertakes research into how public, private and government bodies can work together to strengthen British civil society. As part of its mandate, the commission will provide valuable insight into the essential role philanthropy can play in levelling-up communities around the country.

Final thoughts for new philanthropists

We asked Andrew what lessons he had for those looking to get into philanthropy.
“I think most people wouldn’t realise how enjoyable it is to give money away! But the real joy is that, in many cases, application of evidence, impact assessment, and normal business sense can deliver great leverage to outcomes. Creating structures that multiply donations in a sustainable way that others will readily buy into is the key. People who have more than enough money typically have some expertise in acquiring it – using that skill for the benefit of others is just a natural next step.”

Matthew Bowcock and his wife Helen established the Hazelhurst Trust in 2000 to provide grants and other forms of social finance to local charities and social enterprises. In 2018, Matthew co-founded the Beacon Collective.

Quick facts

The causes

• Charities
• Social enterprises

The funding

• Hazelhurst Trust

The takeaways

• Aim to achieve the maximum possible leverage from your giving.
• Support community-led, strategic change.
• Impact investment allows you to do more with your money.
• There is also room for reactive giving, at the right time.
• Conversations about philanthropy need to encourage more people to give.

---

The philanthropy journey

Matthew and Helen started out by focusing on projects in and around Surrey, where they live, but their philanthropic activities have extended to Matthew’s hometown of Stoke-on-Trent, as well as villages in Zambia.

Following a successful career in technology, Matthew became engaged in charity work. He has been extensively involved in the philanthropic sector for many years, including a seven year tenure as chair of UK Community Foundations and a four-year term as a National Council Member of Arts Council England.

Approach to philanthropy

Our philosophy has always been “you only have a tiny amount relative to the scale of the problems, so use it to achieve the maximum possible leverage”. One of the things you learn pretty early on in philanthropy is that you can choose either to have a very big impact on a very small number of lives, or a very small impact on a very big number of lives.

We tend to pursue small impacts on a lot of lives, because that’s how you achieve the greatest possible leverage. For example, we are supporting the work of Beacon because it could lead to an additional £2 billion a year of philanthropic giving in the UK. That’s leverage! 

With your background in technology, do you find it easier to build relationships with tech-savvy charities?

There was an interesting comment made by Angus Thirlwell (CEO, Hotel Chocolat) saying that all the changes his sector was going to see over the next few years have been accelerated by Covid into six months. He was talking about retail, but it’s easy to transpose this onto the charity sector.

Those organisations which saw the writing on the wall and embraced technology have certainly been best placed to change their modus operandi during this period. Consequently, they’re the organisations that donors have really wanted to back.

Watts Gallery, a charity I’m involved in, found that by harnessing technology to produce and upload material about their collection, it was suddenly connecting with new audiences up and down the country. On top of that, by adapting to sell tickets online, the number of people adding GiftAid to their ticket purchase increased from 31% to 70%.

When charities can adapt like this, donors feel more assured that their money will be used well.

Will initiatives like the Social Impact Trust, launched in 2020, become part of your philanthropy?

Absolutely yes. Impact investing is going to become much more a part of what we do. This won’t necessarily affect the amount of ‘classic’ philanthropic giving we do though, because the money we would put into impact investing is money we would normally give to a portfolio manager to invest in traditional equities.

I think impact investing is a great movement. When you make a philanthropic donation, you accept that you are waving goodbye to the money in exchange for social impact. Whereas when you are investing working capital, you can afford to put in ten times the amount because you know the capital is still intact. Again, it is about how to achieve leverage with modest amounts of money.

You have given to a huge range of charities. What’s the common theme?

One of the funny things about a lot of philanthropy is that you hope you are being really strategic, but then you step back and realise that there isn’t a lot of consistency. My wife has this great saying: “Applying coherence retrospectively!”

Probably the common denominator between our giving is that we’re trying to support community-led, strategic change. With hindsight, we have been able to see that our work in Zambia, helping small villages to have agency over their own developments, clearly had a large overlap with our community work in Surrey and Stoke. But it’s a comparison we didn’t really think about beforehand.

I’m a huge believer in something called ‘Asset Based Community Development’, which dictates that the best approach to development is to talk about opportunity, rather than using indices of deprivation as a starting point. It’s about the glass being half full, not half empty.

A long time ago I settled on a phrase that still applies to a lot of what we have been trying to do with the Hazelhurst Trust: “People know the solutions to their own problems – it’s accessing the solution that’s the problem.”

Do you stick entirely to strategic giving?

Most of our giving tries to create the maximum amount of leverage and stay connected with charities’ activities by being involved and often being a trustee.

That said, there’s nothing wrong with a certain amount of your giving being completely responsive. It could be the next door neighbour’s son doing a sponsored swim, or a running a marathon

We recently supported a project where our local National Trust is looking to re-wild an entire valley. They were slightly short of their target so we filled the gap. How does that tie into our philanthropic plan? Well, it doesn’t. But it was a great local initiative which needed support and we wanted to see it succeed. It’s not absolutely essential that something fits into our strategy.

You have been giving for a long time now. Has philanthropy become a part of your identity?

Oh definitely. Although you have to be careful in the UK, because we’re a culture which hates virtue signalling. So, it shouldn’t be about saying “Look how generous I am”; it should be about doing your part to put a brick in the wall of our society while you have the chance to do so.

I’d much rather people focussed on the why and the what, when it comes to giving, not the who. If the discourse changed to reflect that, we’d be able to engage a lot more wealth holders in giving activity. The conversations around people’s giving habits should not descend into curiosity about the lifestyles of the wealthy because this is what puts a lot of people off getting involved in the first place.

Responding to Covid

What were your original plans for philanthropic giving this year, and did lockdown make you reassess your giving?

I think the strategy at the start of the year was to continue to engage primarily with the charities we’ve supported in the past. My wife and I both spend the majority of our time working in trustee or semi-executive capacities for a range of organisations, so our philanthropic giving tends to align with those charities.

Then, because I was struck down with Covid at the very beginning of lockdown, about three weeks of my life totally disappeared. When everyone was going into panic mode, I was flat on my back with illness.

Once I returned to health, we had time to think about what we wanted to do in response because we hadn’t been able to engage in some of the instant, reactive giving that we otherwise might have.

One of the things that emerged over Covid was that funders supported people they trusted. We felt it important to continue supporting our existing charities because we knew them so well, but we did bring forward some of this giving and made it unrestricted. We just said “Take the donation, and do what you need to do with it – we believe in you.

As we didn’t do much giving at the start of the pandemic we were able to give thought to the recovery and resilience stages. We want to make sure that our support helps the charities to stand up to the long-term challenges caused by Covid and future crises.

Has the uncertainty of 2020 led you to become more cautious in your giving activities?

There’s no doubt that it has. Even if we’d been more active in the first couple of weeks, I don’t think we’d have given money to any charities that we didn’t know personally. There was no time to carry out evaluations of new charities, so we had to focus on those we trusted and had relationships with already.

One of the charities which we made a grant to is the YMCA of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent. They do amazing work supporting disadvantaged young people. We just said to them “Look, I don’t care how you use it but here’s a grant for Covid relief. Tell me afterwards what you’ve done with it.” We simply couldn’t do that to a charity where we didn’t know and trust the individuals.

I think charities which had already invested a lot of time developing good donor relationships over the years saw that a lot of their donors were willing to step up. Those which struggled were the ones scrabbling around trying to build new relationships over Zoom.

Throughout Covid, did you seek advice from any friends engaged in philanthropy?

I’m very fortunate to be a part of a support network with fellow philanthropists, formed out of a course I did 13 years ago, called The Philanthropy Workshop, about maximising the impact of strategic philanthropy. I didn’t actively seek out advice, but conversations were shared about how we were all responding to Covid, and so there was a degree of knowledge-sharing going on.

One of the things I think we all learnt was that you need to have enough flexibility in your strategy to account for the unexpected. When you learn about philanthropy, you’re taught to think strategically about what you’re trying to achieve and in some ways not to respond spontaneously to appeals, but, in this case, it was fortunate that so many donors were able to readjust their giving plans so quickly.

Advice for philanthropists

If you had one sentence to convince someone to get involved in philanthropy, what would you say to them?

It’s the most rewarding and interesting and satisfying way you can spend your life.

Laura Montgomery serves as the Grants Coordinator and Correspondent for The Ellis Campbell Foundation, her family’s foundation based in Hampshire, which was established in 1990 by Laura’s father, Michael Campbell. Michael remains the Chairman.

Laura believes passionately that philanthropists and foundations have a duty to ensure they are doing philanthropy well, having learnt over the years that giving money away is easy but measuring impact is extremely difficult. Hence, before the COVID crisis struck, the family foundation had embarked on a strategic review.

With no full-time staff, Laura had met with a number of organisations who could help the foundation improve its impact. The trustees appointed Ten Years’ Time to help them take the deep dive they wanted.

In January, the trustees began an intensive seven-month programme that would focus on youth power and leadership. They held meetings with over 70 experts including researchers, activists, policymakers and those working in the fields of education, youth services, housing, the care system, mental health and crucially from so many individuals with lived experience.

Then the pandemic struck. The trustees faced the difficult decision whether to put the strategic review to one side and direct all their grant funding into causes supporting the COVID relief efforts. This decision was further complicated by the fact that the foundation’s investments are in commercial property.

As a fifth generation family member, Laura is also managing director of the family’s property investment office, The Ellis Campbell Group. The investment office gives a grant to the foundation annually.

Laura had planned to grow the endowment to equate to 5% of the investments of the group and hoped to make a significant grant of £2 million to the foundation in 2020. However, in the run up to 2020, property market performance had been down, so the profits were not available to make the in-specie transaction as planned. The pandemic knocked the business even further.

Yet, the trustees felt the exceptional circumstances meant the foundation had to act. They sold property and put £100,000 toward COVID support, even though market conditions will likely continue to affect their long term plans to reach the endowment target.

This amount was split across a number of organisations, including the Hampshire and Isle of White Community Foundation, National Emergencies Trust, Trussell Trust and the Hampshire Medical Fund.

The foundation will also press ahead with its plan to concentrate efforts on Youth Power and Leadership with a commitment of £200,000.

The review that led to this focused plan had encouraged the whole family to get involved in the strategy, including the upcoming sixth generation. Laura did not want to lose that level of engagement – or let down family members and the experts who had committed a great deal to the process.

“It has been such a rewarding process of engaging with the individuals we want to support, and we have been in a unique position to be in full listening mode and to be open to them and their inputs.”

Previously, the family foundation had a broader portfolio across Youth, Education and Heritage in Hampshire, Perthshire and London. Since 1990, the family had committed £3.1 million in grants to these causes. An additional £35,000 has been reserved in case it is needed in emergency funding for causes they already support.

In itself, the decision to fund both COVID and current commitments was not difficult. However, it was difficult to determine how best to do this at time when the foundation was facing capital constraints and uncertainty about future funding flows.

In a normal year, the foundations grants equate to 6% of the net asset value of its endowment. This year, its payout ratio could increase to as much as 12% of net asset value.

“As a small Foundation, there is simply less room for manoeuvre right now. As much as we would like, we cannot throw caution to the wind and double the size of grant-making.

This process has really challenged us to think about how we as philanthropists should be looking at the big picture and questioning what we should be doing in this moment, given all the global struggles and our commitments.

I am pleased with our decisions, but there were many competing demands and financial challenges facing our foundation.”

Laura extends her gratitude to the Association of Charitable Foundations, The Indigo Trust and The Beacon Collaborative for their role informing their COVID giving strategy.