Plongez dans la liste complète des épisodes de Philanthropisms. Chaque épisode est catalogué accompagné de descriptions détaillées, ce qui facilite la recherche et l'exploration de sujets spécifiques. Suivez tous les épisodes de votre podcast préféré et ne manquez aucun contenu pertinent.
In this episode we take a look at the growing prevalence of "platform philanthropy" (i.e. giving and organising via online platforms) and the opportunities and challenges this presents. Including:
The rise of the platform economy & the current state of platform philanthropy
Are we seeing a shift from dedicated platforms for giving, towards commercial organisations adding giving functionality to their existing platforms?
How is the growing use of direct payment platforms like CashApp and Venmo affecting philanthropy?
Who owns the the platforms we use for giving and what drives them?
Are there risks to our growing dependence on platforms?
How do platforms shape our choices when it comes to giving?
What can the recent controversies over Spotify and the Joe Rogan podcast, and GoFundMe withholding donations to the Freedom Convoy, tell us about the responsibilities that platforms bear regarding the organisations they enable people to give to?
Is platform technology bringing us full-circle back to the traditional model of person-to-person giving? What opportunities and what risks does this present?
Why does the history of Victorian voting charities have to tell us about the potential risks of bias in crowdfunding and P2P giving?
Will perverse incentives within the "attention economy" lead to new challenges for CSOs?
Will platforms and the rise of Web3 lead to more emphasis on decentralised forms of organising in civil society?
Can technology overcome the known weaknesses of decentralised models, or do we risking discovering old problems in new forms?
In this episode we talk to Mihaela Giurgiu, a philanthropy expert from Romania who works as a mapping, research and peer-learning expert for the European Community Foundation Initiative and as an international network consultant for The Funding Initiative. Including:
What is the history and current context for civil society in Romania and across Central and Eastern Europe more broadly?
What is the general attitude of governments in CE Europe towards civil society and philanthropy?
What is the balance between local, regional, national and international approaches in philanthropic funding across CE Europe?
What kind of domestic causes receive philanthropic funding in Romania and other CE European countries?
What is the attitude of the public towards philanthropy in CE European countries?
Do recent critiques of philanthropy in the US and UK resonate in the CE European context? Or do they feel less relevant?
Why have community foundations played such an important role in developing civil society and philanthropy in countries where the State previously crowded them out?
Does the diversity of forms and approaches shown by community foundations sometimes make it difficult to position them as part of a coherent movement?
Do community foundations tend to get forgotten in wider discussions about foundation philanthropy? If so, why?
What is the role of infrastructure bodies in helping civil society organisations and funders navigate and adapt to a rapidly-changing environment?
Has the Covid-19 pandemic increased awareness of the value of infrastructure? Will this result in more sustainable long-term funding?
What role can giving circles play in developing a culture of philanthropy?
In this episode we talk to Cassie Robinson, a leading philanthropy thinker, connector and innovator, and formerly Deputy Director of Funding Strategy at the National Lottery Community Fund. We discuss the current state of philanthropy, how it needs to change, and what those working in the field can do to transform it. Including:
-What are the best and worst things about working in institutional philanthropy and being a "philanthropoid"? -How much power do philanthropoids have to shape the institutions they work in? - If you were going to design a foundation from scratch, what would it look like? -For those looking to make an impact on the big challenges facing us today, is philanthropy the best option or are there more effective alternative routes? -Are the dividing lines between "nonprofit" and other approaches increasingly artificial? -Should we be thinking less about institutions and more about networks when it comes to the future for philanthropy? -What can philanthropy learn from fungi...? -Is there sometimes a risk that in giving away power, it gets lost rather than transferred? Do we therefore also need to think about how funders use their power more effectively? -What role can art and fiction play in helping to develop "social imagination"? What can philanthropy do to harness this and encourage better foresight and thinking about the future? -Does institutional philanthropy take enough risks?
In this episode we talk to Teddy Schleifer, Senior Reporter at Puck News, about what is going on in big money philanthropy in the US, and the challenges of reporting on philanthropy. Including.
Why is it important to have journalists focussing on philanthropy?
Does the trend towards independent media outlets (substacks, specialist outlets etc) make it easier to report on elite philanthropy, or harder?
How do you balance focussing on the individual stories of philanthropists vs systemic issues about philanthropy as a whole?
How hard is it to penetrate the world of the super-rich?
What are the most interesting/encouraging things about Mackenzie Scott’s emergence as a major philanthropist?
What are the main questions that still need answering?
What should we make of Melinda French Gates’s increasing desire to distance her philanthropy from that of her ex-husband, Bill Gates?
Is Elon Musk actually serious about philanthropy? What do we know so far about what kind of philanthropy he might do?
If he brings his existing online persona to his philanthropy, what is that going to mean for philanthropic discourse overall?
How have the last few years and the evolution of Facebook into Meta affected Zuckerberg’s philanthropy?
Who are the big Silicon Valley donors that most of us haven’t even heard of? What are they into?
How seriously should we be taking crypto wealth?
Is cryptophilanthropy any different to traditional philanthropy (other than being done using crypto?) If so, how?
Why are so many Silicon Valley donors into Effective Altruism? Given the likely profile of billionaire wealth in coming years, is EA going to become a bigger part of philanthropy overall?
In this episode we talk to Sadaf Shallwani, Director of Learning and Evaluation at the Firelight Foundation, about funding systems change, supporting grassroots communities and shifting power dynamics within philanthropy. Including:
How did the Firelight Foundation come about, what is its core mission, and what is distinctive/unique about its approach?
Why is "traditional aid broken"?
Why is the distinction between charity and justice or solidarity so important to Firelight's work?
Does a focus on justice and solidarity require taking a different approach to philanthropy? What does this mean in practice?
How can we ensure that power and decision making within philanthropy is shifted towards the people and communities who would have been seen as the traditional ‘beneficiaries’? (E.g. through participatory means?)
Is the strongest case for shifting power a moral one (i.e. it is the "right" thing to do), or a pragmatic one (i.e. it produces better outcomes)?
Can “funder ego” or a “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?
What kind of challenges are there for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?
How big a risk is there that foundations and other funders co-opt social movements or grassroots CSOs by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics? How do we avoid this risk?
Why is core-cost and multi-year funding so important when supporting movements? Are we seeing more funders recognise this and adapt the way they fund?
Can we find forms of philanthropy that are genuinely able to support fundamental reform to the very systems in which wealth has been created? What are some of the hallmarks of this type of philanthropy?
How can funders strike the right balance between taking a trust-based approach and not placing unnecessary reporting burdens on grantees, and having sufficient measurement to ensure they still know their funding is working?
How can funders design impact measurement approaches with their grantees to ensure they are genuinely empowering and beneficial rather than imposing a new burden?
In this episode, in light of recent high-profile disasters in places like Ukraine, Afghanistan and Tigray, we take a look at the long-standing relationship between philanthropy and disaster response. Including:
History:
The history of disaster response philanthropy: from 16th Century "charitable briefs" in response to fires and floods to the emergence of the Disasters Emergency Committee and the rise of celebrity-led disaster appeals
What has been the relationship between one-off disaster appeals and efforts to encourage regular giving?
How did fundraisers of the past use published donor lists to name and shame people into giving?
Has disaster response philanthropy always been a cross-border affair?
How has perception of victims of disasters shaped philanthropic response throughout history?
Why has slowness in distributing funds always been a source of criticism?
How have paternalistic and judgmental approaches to distribution led to to resentment and even riots?
Psychology & Economics
Why does the "identifiable victim effect" mean that it is often better to focus on individual stories rather than statistics?
Can giving people too much information about a disaster actually decrease their giving?
What is the "bystander effect" and why does it lead people to give less when in groups?
How does out perception of disasters as "natural" or "man-made" affect our willingness to give?
Current Context
Why is the Ukraine war receiving more attention than other disasters e.g. Tigray, Afghanistan? Is there a racial element?
Why do people prefer to give goods, and why don't most NGOs want this?
Are donations of weapons philanthropy?
How are people using technology to disintermediate disaster philanthropy (e.g. "donating" via Airbnb, giving cryptocurrency)? What concerns should we have?
Is it helpful to depoliticize disasters, or does it deflect attention from what is truly necessary to deal with some situations?
Can we ever shift from disaster response to long-term development and prevention?
In this episode we talk to Tyrone McKinley Freeman, Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI about his book "Madam C. J. Walker's Gospel of Giving: Black Women's Philanthropy During Jim Crow" and about the history and current context of Black philanthropy. Including:
Madam C. J. Walker:
Who was Madam C. J. Walker, and why is she such an important figure in the history of philanthropy?
Was what she represented- as a role model of an independent, successful Black woman who used her position to speak out and support others- just as significant as the monetary value of her donations?
Blurred Lines
Madam Walker's story highlights the fact that Black communities have often not had the luxury of distinguishing between philanthropy, commerce and politics, as they have been forced to use all tools at their disposal to further their aims. Is this blurring of the boundaries something we could learn from today?
Madam C. J. Walker’s giving is distinct from many other major historical philanthropists in being grounded in traditions of mutual aid rather than charity- how did this shape her approach, and what could we learn from this today?
Civil Rights
How important a focus for Madam C. J. Walker’s philanthropy was civil rights?
Where does she fit in the debate between accommodationists and those arguing that the goal should be equality whilst retaining a distinct Black identity?
Education
Why was education such an important part of Madam Walker’s philanthropy?
Does her support for Black educational institutions confuse the dominant narrative that positions many of these institutions as tools for white social control?
Women's Philanthropy
To what extent has philanthropy helped to equip Black women with skills and tools for wider civic engagement? Has this led to engagement with issues of women’s rights?
The Role of Philanthropoids
How did Freeman B. Ransom shape Madam C. J. Walker’s philanthropy? Did he merely interpret her wishes and goals, or can we only understand her philanthropy by taking into account his role too?
The History of Black Philanthropy
Is there a distinct field/practice of Black philanthropy?
Does a proper understanding of the history of Black philanthropy require us to broaden our viewpoints and definitions about what should count as “philanthropy”?
Who are the other key Black philanthropists from history that we should be paying attention to?
Is there an ‘archival inequality’ because a lot of philanthropy in black communities historically took place outside the boundaries of formal organisations and is thus less likely to be captured in records?
In this episode we take a look at the opportunities and challenges that cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology bring for giving and ask: is cryptophilanthropy a boom market, or a busted flush? Including:
Is the resurgence of interest in cryptophilanthropy in the last 18 months partly to do with the enforced digitisation many of us went through during the pandemic?
At the same time, what do recent decisions by organisations like the Wikimedia Foundation and WWF to dial down or abandon their cryptophilanthropy activities tell us about the state of the market?
Who are the crypto-donors? Is it mostly platform/exchange owners, early adopters who have made millions, or are those with more modest crypto holdings also getting involved?
Can we tell anything from the culture and ideology of crypto communities about their approach to giving and their views on charities?
Is crypto genuinely useful as a way of getting resources into difficult places (e.g. Ukraine), or is there always a "last mile" problem?
Does crypto bring the possibility of radical transparency? Is this a good thing?
Is cryptophilanthropy sometimes used as a tool to drive wider crypto adoption that benefits the donors?
Are NFTs just a bubble that charities should avoid, or is there something genuinely interesting about unique digital objects?
How can charities avoid the volatility risks of crypto?
What new challenges does the semi-anonymous nature of crypto bring when it comes to donations?
Should environmental concerns be a reason for charities to avoid crypto?
Is the crypto world just too full of "general scaminess"?
Does the crypto world view promote the idea that we can do without trust, and should civil society instead be trying build trust?
Can blockchain overcome the known limits of non-hierarchical organisation, or are we simply going to rediscover old problems in new guises?
In this episode we discuss the links between religion, faith and giving with David P. King, Karen Lake Buttrey Director of the Lake Institute on Faith & Giving and Associate Professor of Philanthropic Studies at the Lilly Family School on Philanthropy at Indiana University- Purdue University, Indiana. Including:
How important a part does faith play in motivating and shaping approaches to giving in the modern world?
What role has it played historically?
When it comes to faith as a factor in philanthropy, what is most important:
Observance of specific religious requirements to give (e.g. tithing, Tzedakah, Zakat)?
Broader religious teachings on ethics & responsibility?
Attendance at places of worship?
A sense of shared religious identity?
How do religious teachings on the nature of poverty and justice affect the likelihood of their followers giving and the ways in which they give?
Are we seeing a decline in faith in places like the UK and the US, or simply a shift away from organised, collective religion to more informal, individual spirituality? What impact might this have on giving?
Are places of worship important in maintaining cultures of giving?
To what extent is this because of their religious nature and to what extent is it simply because they are community buildings that bring people together, or act as a location for grassroots/informal activity?
At a time when secular community spaces are becoming fewer, do places of worship have an increasingly important role to play as community anchors? Are they embracing this role, and how?
How much of the giving that goes towards religion in the US is for the maintenance of religious institutions themselves, and how much gets passed on into wider charitable activities?
What role has faith (especially missionary faith) played in shaping the field of international development and humanitarian aid?
Does faith still play an important role today? (E.g. given that quite a few major INGOs have religious roots, and are ostensibly still religious orgs)
Does the academic study of philanthropy and civil society need to do more in terms of taking into account the role of faith groups?
What challenges does this pose? (i.e. Different literatures/concepts, specialist knowledge of the structures of religious orgs required etc?).
In this episode we explore the long history of concerns that some money may be "tainted", and ask what this means for philanthropy now and in the future. Including:
The history of tainted donations, featuring: St Augustine of Hippo, The Venerable Bede, St Thomas Aquinas, The Paris Guild of Prostitutes, Frederick Douglass, George Cadbury, George Bernard Shaw, The Salvation Army, J. D. Rockefeller, Mark Twain and G.K. Chesterton.
Is a donation only tainted if the method of wealth creation is ethical questionable, or can it be tainted by association becasue a donor is problematic for some other reason?
How have views about what kinds of wealth creation are or aren't ethically acceptable changed over time?
Is there a statute of limitations of any kind on tainted money, so that after a certain period of time it is deemed OK despite any problematic connections?
Is it enough to acknowledge when wealth is based on past injustices such as slavery, or do active reparations need to be made? How does this work in practice?
Should we distinguish between critiques of individual tainted donations and systemic critiques of wealth and capitalism as a whole?
Who decides whether a donation is tainted?
Is it better to take tainted money if the charitable activity being funded addresses the ethical concerns arising from the wealth? (E.g. using money from the gambling industry to address gambling addiction). Or does this increase the chance of reputation laundering?
Does acceptance of a gift in reality always imply condoning the source of wealth?
Are concerns about tainted donations greater when the donor is getting recognition for the gift? Would it be better if such gifts were entirely anonymous?
Is it more acceptable to accept money from a tainted source if no strings are attached? Is this another argument for core cost funding?
Is new technology bringing new challenges when it comes to identifying and assessing the sources of donations?
In this episode we talk to Charles Keidan, editor of Alliance magazine, about why we need philanthropy journalism and what some of the key issues are in civil society right now. Including:
Why is it important to have journalists focussing on philanthropy?
Is coverage of philanthropy too focussed on the Global North (especially the US)? Is it possible to rebalance this?
Is it possible to bring philanthropy journalism to a mainstream audience on a regular basis? If so, how does this need to be done?
Could increased philanthropic funding of news media actually undermine journalism’s ability to hold philanthropy itself to account? (E.g. if outlets self-censor to avoid upsetting existing or potential funders).
What are the key trends in philanthropy we should be watching?
Is climate change now seen by philanthropists and funders as something that concerns them regardless of their charitable mission?
Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing?
What should we make of concerns about “tainted donations”?
Is it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?
Should philanthropy publications try to give space to as wide a range of views as possible, or is there a risk of "both-sidesing" issues?
In this episode we talk to Derek Bardowell, CEO of Ten Years Time Ltd and author of new book Giving Back: How to do good better, We discuss why our understanding of philanthropy needs to shift from a mindset of charity to one of justice, and what this means for donors and grantmakers. Including:
Why is the distinction between charity and justice so important, and what does it mean in practice?
Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing?
What should philanthropic organisations be doing to understand and make amends for any links to historic racial injustices?
Does philanthropy have a diversity problem?
Are funders more effective when they reflect more closely the people and communities they serve? In what ways can they achieve this?
Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issues that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of all philanthropic funders and nonprofits?
What does this mean in practice for grantmakers? (e.g. supporting more grantees led by BIPOC leaders, promoting more BIPOC employees into positions of authority within foundations, acknowledging where philanthropic assets have been created in ways that exacerbated racial injustice, paying reparations etc?)
Is there a danger of philanthropy being paternalistic, with decisions being made about communities rather than by them? How do we avoid this risk?
Is the current enthusiasm for social movements reflective of a frustration people have that traditional nonprofits have failed to move the needle on issues such as the climate crisis or racial justice?
Does the ability of social movements to be more overtly political, or to employ more challenging tactics (e.g. protest, direct action), give them an advantage over civil society organisations (CSOs) that might be more constrained by legal/regulatory requirements?
Is there a danger of "preaching to the choir" about philanthropy reform? I.e. those who engage with the arguments are the ones who always would have “got it” anyway? If so, how do you get these arguments out to a wider audience?
In this episode we talk to political philosopher Emma Saunders-Hastings about her new book Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality and some of the big questions that philanthropy raises for philosophers and political theorists. Including:
What is the distinction between distributive and relational concepts of equality?
Many modern critiques of philanthropy focus on the former, but there is a rich history of exploring the latter (by people like John Stuart Mill, Jane Addams etc). Why have we forgotten this tradition? And why is it so important to revive interest in these questions?
What should we make of examples where philanthropy is based on unequal relationships but still produces positive social outcomes?
In terms of relational inequality is there any difference between everyday donations and those of big money donors? Or do both run the risk of perpetuating unequal relationships between individuals?
Is rejection of the idea of gratitude on behalf of the recipient a necessary part of seeing philanthropy more as a matter of justice than of charity? Is there any danger that in doing so we lose something important about the reciprocal nature of giving? (Or, more pragmatically, that we lose an important part of what keeps people giving?)
Can an increased emphasis on everyday giving help to counter concerns about the anti-democratic impact of big money philanthropy?
Does philanthropy have any value as a “nursery of democracy” (a la Tocqueville)?
Does a focus on this aspect of philanthropy dictate prioritizing particular kinds of activities or causes (e.g. volunteering rather than cash giving etc)?
Do any of the efforts to make philanthropy more democratic by adopting participatory grantmaking or embracing traditions of mutual aid address the concerns raised in the book?
Is Effective Altruism particularly prone to criticism that it is paternalistic and furthers relational inequality, since it prioritises measurable outcomes dictated by donors over empowering recipients?
What value can historical or philosophical perspective bring to our understanding of philanthropy?
Do critiques of philanthropy too often confine themselves to the realms of ideal theory, or fall into the trap of comparing worst-case examples of philanthropy with idealized conceptions of government? How do you avoid this risk?
In this episode Rhodri is joined by Angela Kail (Director of Consulting at New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)) to take a look at the growing cost of living crisis in the UK (and beyond), and what means for philanthropy, grantmaking and the work of civil society organisations. Including:
Impact on charity finances
What will the impact of inflation be when it comes increasing costs (e.g. staff costs, energy, food, building materials, leisure equipment etc)?
What impact will inflation have on decreasing the value of reserves or longer-term contracts/grants?
Will any of the govt measures announced so far (e.g. capping energy bills) help charities? Are they enough?
What will the impact of rising interest rates be on charities? Will any of the govt measures announced so far (E.g. capping energy bills) help charities? Are they enough?
Is charities’ ability to fundraise going to be affected?
Increased demand for services
Where are we going to see the most acute demand for services in coming months?
Direct support for those in poverty (e.g. food banks, warm spaces)
Advice and help (e.g. CAB, specialist advice for those dealing with major illness, disability etc)
Will we see fewer people giving, or the same people giving less?
Is there a danger that levels of donations remains stable, but their value decreases in real terms as inflation rises? Does this mean we actually need to encourage more giving? And does this present a major challenge in the current economic climate?
Impact on HNW philanthropy
Should we expect any direct impact of the cost of living crisis on HNW giving? If so, is it likely to go up, or down?
Is there potential for philanthropy to play a role in helping charities survive the cost of living crisis?
What are the dangers of seeing philanthropy as a potential solution here? (e.g. is there a risk of validating policy decisions, or hiding the true impact of cuts?)
What are the practical challenges? (e.g. Lack of knowledge/experience of HNW fundraising, unequal distribution of donors around UK, increased competition for fundraising)
Impact on grantmaking
What impact will inflation/interest rates etc have on grantmakers?
Could funders be spending more from their endowments?
Should funders add inflationary top-ups to existing gifts/grants?
Would it help if funder simplified grantmaking processes?
Why is unrestricted funding so importan?
How can funders use data (from NPC, 360 Giving etc) to help ensure grantmaking is targeted at areas of greatest need?
In this episode, Rhod talks to Martha Lackritz-Peltier, General Counsel of nonprofit technology specialist TechSoup, about using tech to overcome some of the barriers to cross-border giving and the localization of international development. Including:
What is the UN’s Grand Bargain? Why is this important?
Why has it not been delivered on so far?
Where does the reluctance of INGOs to cede control to local CSOs come from?
Lack of trust/fear of fraud & mismanagement?
Unwillingness to relinquish power? Force of habit?
Not knowing how to do it?
How does NGO Source aim to address this problem?
Are the biggest challenges in gathering and providing data on NGO equivalency technical, political or cultural?
How do funders and grantees use this data?
What steps need to be taken to protect NGO data and make sure it is not mis-used?
What responsibilities do platforms bear for the choice of which organisations do and don’t make it onto their lists?
What are the key barriers to making a platform like NGO Source work at scale? (i.e. political/regulatory issues, buy-in from funders, buy-in from recipient orgs, technological challenges?)
Are governments (in the US and elsewhere) actually keen to encourage and facilitate cross-border giving (given that it often results in reduced tax take in their own countries for benefits produced elsewhere)? #
What is the most compelling argument for why governments should support cross-border giving?
What barriers do international financial regulations (AML, CTF, sanctions etc) present to cross-border giving?
Is there a danger that through supra-national bodies like FATCA, the US ends up imposing its own views and values on the rest of the world when it comes to philanthropy and civil society?
What should we make of the promises of various new and emerging technologies (e.g. AI, blockchain etc) to “revolutionise” international development and cross-border giving?
Is there a danger that technological solutions risk leaving behind smaller CSOs and grassroots organisations?
In this episode we explore whether it is always necessary to say thank you for a philanthropic gift, whether it might sometimes be problematic, and the implications of how we choose to recognise donations. Including:
If we view philanthropy as a duty of justice, rather than a charitable choice, does that mean we have a right to expect it and therefore don't need to be grateful?
Does this apply to all philanthropy, or only to certain cause areas (e.g. inequality and poverty?)
Is it just a pragmatic reality that we need to express gratitude to donors in order to keep them giving? Or does this sacrifice important principles? How does this relate to the debate over "donor-centric" vs "community-cnetric" approaches to fundraising?
If a donor expects or demands gratitude for their gift, does this become a problem? (And conversely, if the thanks is freely given is that OK?)
How has the expectation of gratitude historically been used as a tool of social control?
Is it appropriate to show thanks to an everyday donor giving a small gift? If so, is it paradoxical to argue that we should show less gratitude to a major philanthropic donor?
If donor/recipient relationships are more equal (e.g. as within mutual aid traditions) is it OK to show, or expect, gratitude then?
Is it possible to have mutual gratitude even within uneqaul funder/recipient relationships?
What can history and anthropology tell us about the relationship between giving, reciprocity and gratitude?
Is an expectation that a recipient of a gift should reciprocate in kind better than an expectation of gratitude? Does this rule out gifts where there is no realistic prospect of reciprocating?
What is the history of commemoration in the form of statues, plaques and naming rights?
Does this represent a problematic institutionalization of expectations of gratitude, or is it a natural response to a generous gift (and a crucial fundraising tool?)
In this episode, Rhodri talks to Sara Slaughter, Executive Director of the W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation, and Derek Mitchell, CEO of Partners in Schools Innovation about their relationship as funder and grantee, and how they have worked together to move towards to a new focus on equity and justice. Including:
How and why has Stone Foundation changed the way it does grantee convenings? What do they get out of it as a funder, and what do grantees get out of it?
How difficult is it as a funder to convene without being directive?
Do we need to shed some of the technocratic language that tends to dominate philanthropic funding?
What is “radical humility” and why should funders embrace it?
Do we need to redefine what counts as success and failure in grantmaking?
Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issue that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits? What does this mean in practice?
In trying to convince philanthropic funders of the need to shift power is it better to make a moral case (i.e., that they should do it because it is “the right thing to do”) or a practical one (i.e., that it will make them more effective as grantmakers)?
Are there challenges for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?
How do you balance the value of experience and the value of expertise?
Is the process of giving power away uncomfortable by necessity?
Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently distort the work of their grantees by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and how to fund it? How can funders check their own power and thus avoid this risk?
Is it always best to shift power? Or are there situations where funders should “lean into their power”, because they are better placed to undertake advocacy or influencing?
How important is physical proximity in making trust-based relationships work?
How can funders and grantees manage the tension between urgency and patience?
Is philanthropy a reflection of those “circumstances of economic injustice” that Dr Martin Luther King identified, and therefore too often part of the problem? How can we make it be part of the solution?
In this episode we take a look at a few of the biggest stories from what has been a notable newsworthy couple of weeks for philanthropy - focusing on the fallout from the spectacular implosion of crypto billionaire and high profile Effective Altruist Sam Bank-Fried. We also take a look at a big philanthropy pledge from Jeff Bezos and the latest on Mackenzie Scott's radical no-strings-attached big giving. Including:
SBF:
What the hell has happened in the SBF story?
What impact might this have on wider efforts to promote the idea of cryptophilanthropy?
Will SBF's downfall lead to further calls to clamp down on big money donations in politics, given his prominent support for the Democracts in recent years?
Is it likely to mean more skepticism about philanthropic funding for journalism, given that some feel SBF's significant donations to news outlets led to him receiving less critical coverage?
Does his downfall present an existential crisis for Effective Altruism (EA)?
Should we distinguish between different ways of understanding EA: EA-as-movement, EA-as-ideology, EA-as-academic-field? What is the likely impact on each of these?
Do EA movement leaders have questions to answer about whether they were complicit in what was going on at FTX, or just naive? And what are the ramifications of either?
Did SBF's EA beliefs lead him to adopt a radical "end justifies the means" view that allowed him to justify bad behaviour?
Is this situation a killer blow for EA's "give to earn" idea?
Scott & Bezos
How excited should we be about pledges to give big in the future?
What details do we have about what Bezos is actually planning to do?
Why does the idea that "giving money away is hard" have such a long history? How is Mackenzie Scott challenging this idea?
How should we understand "effectiveness" when it comes to philanthropy?
In our last episode of the year, we take a look at some of the key issues and trends affecting philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what to watch out for in 2023. Including:
The impact of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis and possible recession on philanthropy, everyday giving and the work of charities.
Polarisation and political division making it harder for philanthropy to engage constructively with criticism and the need for change.
More mainstream media focus on philanthropy. (And therefore more scepticism and critique?)
More big donors supporting efforts to develop everyday giving.
A new generation of celebrities (Youtubers, sports stars etc) reclaiming the word “philanthropy” for themselves? What impact might this have on wider perceptions of philanthropy?
More ultra-wealthy people make public pledges to give the majority of their wealth away.
Blurring the lines between individual and corporate philanthropy more than ever
Ongoing tensions between “strategic” and “trust-based” philanthropy.
More donors and funders experimenting with models that enable them to shift power as well as money e.g. participatory methods, funding grassroots movements etc.
Debates about balancing urgency and patience in philanthropy.
Division in the Effective Altruism movement in the wake of Sam Bankman-Fried’s downfall?
Tainted donations: will more organisations reject ‘bad money’, or will they try to find ways of justifying taking it in light of pressures on finances?
The balkanisation of social media in the wake of Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover.
Is cryptophilanthropy dead in the water?
Will nonprofits start to make use of new generative AI tools like Chat-GPT? What new possibilities and challenges will these bring?
Will layoffs and restructuring across many tech companies open up an opportunity for nonprofits to recruit new talent and skills?
In this episode we take a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and business. Commercial ventures have always played a key role in generating wealth for people to give away through philanthropy, but is there more to it than that? And what are the promises and pitfalls of trying to combine profit with purpose? Including:
Does philanthropy need to be "more business-like"? What does this actually mean, and why has the idea continued to be so influential?
What can the history of fundraising show us about how charities have sometimes pioneered new commercial techniques?
What sort of template do the Quaker business leaders of the C19th offer for how we can combine business with philanthropy?
Why have marginalised communities often led the way in blurring the lines between commerce and philanthropy?
Why did Milton Friedman object so strongly to the idea that businesses have social responsibilities, and how influential have his ideas been?
Does the emergence of new corporate forms such as the B Corp suggest a new golden age of combining profit and purpose?
Should we be wary of the claims of tech company owners that their commercial ventures produce more social good than traditional philanthropy?
Will Yvonne Chouinard's decision to hand Patagonia over to non-profit ownership start a new trend among business-owner philanthropists?
What can history and global context tell us about the pros and cons of non-profit business ownership?
The surprisingly long history of social finance: what can Pliny the Younger's land deals, the collapse of the C18th Charitable Corporation and C19th scepticism about Octavia Hill's affordable housing plans tell us about the good and potential bad of impact investing today?
In this episode Rhod talks to Jake Ferguson and Vanessa Thomas, two of the Committee members of the Baobab Foundation - a new member-led endowed grantmaker that is seeking to address issues of systemic racism and intersectional injustice in the UK. Including:
How did the Baobab Foundation come about?
What has been the progress so far?
Has the momentum behind addressing issues of racial justice that we saw in the nonprofit world following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 been maintained?
Why have Black and minority-led organisations historically lost out when it comes to philanthropic funding?
How is Baobab foundation trying to shift power to those who would traditionally have been seen as the recipients of philanthropy?
Why has Baobab decided not to adopt a traditional charitable structure?
How is Baobab trying to influence the way other funders work?
Does the philanthropy sector in the UK have a diversity problem?
Can Baobab play a longer-term role in offering a route into grantmaking for more people from Black and minority communities?
Why is building an endowment such an important aim of Baobab?
Can Baobab play a useful role as an intermediary in overcoming some of the barriers in relationships between more traditional/risk-averse funders and grassroots organisations/social movements?
Are there challenges in trying to bring together different types of knowledge (e.g. lived experience and professional expertise)? How do you navigate these?
Why was it important for Baobab to adopt a horizonatal, non-hierarchical structure?
How can measurement be a useful tool for organisations that receive funding, and not just a means to reinforce the dominance of the funder?
How can donors, funders and CSOs get involved with Baobab Foundation?
In this episode we talk to historian and political scientist Claire Dunning about her book Nonprofit Neighborhoods: An urban history of inequality and the American state, and her work on the history of radical philanthropy in Boston. Including:
-What are the “nonprofit neighborhoods” described in the book? -Can participation in nonprofits become an alternative to involvement in the mainstream structures of civic participation, rather than a route into them? Does this undermine the Tocquevillean ideal of voluntary associations as “nurseries of democracy”? -Is there any danger that in becoming partners with/agents for the state, nonprofits undermine their own ability to speak out? Is this due to active stipulation by state funders, or more through self-censorship by nonprofits? -Have government efforts to involve nonprofits been driven in part by a desire to bypass the scepticism that might otherwise have been aimed at big government-delivered welfare and social reform programmes? -To what extent was the involvement of nonprofits in programmes like the War on Poverty designed centrally (i.e. by Washington policymakers) and how much was a result of local implementation? -What does the history of FUND (Fund for Urban Negro Development) and BUFF (Boston Black United Front Foundation) tell us about the challenges of trying to use philanthropy to address deep-seated issues of racial inequality? -Is it ever possible to have truly “no strings attached “ giving, or are there always hidden strings? -What can history tell us about the risk that foundations and other funders co-opt social movements by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics? -What can the FUND/BUFF example tell us about current debates between donor-centric and community-centric fundraising? -What value can a historical perspective can bring to philanthropists, funders and non-profit professionals? -Are there limits to the utility of historical comparison in understanding the present? What should we take into account or be aware of? -What is the value of historical edge cases?
On this episode, as part of our occasional mini-series in partnership with NPC, we talk to Tris Lumley about open philanthropy: what it is, why it is important, and how we make it happen. Including:
What is NPC’s Open Philanthropy project? How did it come about?
How has NPC been putting some of its thinking about open philanthropy into practice?
What is the difference between “outward openness” and “inward openness” in philanthropy?
Do foundations (and donors) need to be more transparent?
If so, why? (Is this primarily about making philanthropy more legitimate, or more effective/efficient?)
What do they need to be open about? (e.g. income, spending, diversity of staff/trustees, how decisions are made etc).
How can we make use of open data in philanthropy?
Why might some funders be reluctant to be more open? Is this ever justified?
Does philanthropy need to get better at valuing different forms of knowledge?
How do you balance the value of experience and the value of expertise?
Are there challenges for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?
What does the focus on inclusion mean for our approaches to measurement?
How important is core-cost and multi-year funding when it comes to making philanthropy more inwardly open?
Is trust-based philanthropy more open (i.e. because it asks less of grantees in terms of reporting etc), or more closed (i.e. because it relies on developing trusting relationships and can therefore become cliquey)?
In this episode Rhod talks to philanthropy adviser Emma Beeston and academic Dr Beth Breeze about their new book Advising Philanthropists. Including:
What are some of the key elements of philanthropy advice?
How much is philanthropy advice about objective, technical things (e.g. tax, structures etc) and how much is it about subjective things (about finding purpose, understanding values etc)?
At what stage in their ‘philanthropic journey’ are donors most likely to seek advice?
Where do donors tend to get philanthropy advice from? What impact does the source of the advice have on the nature of the advice?
Is philanthropy advice normally a one-off or time limited service, or an ongoing relationship?
To what extent do advisers see their role as neutral agents servicing the demands of donors vs active agents challenging them/shaping their approach?
What factors make for a successful donor/adviser relationship?
What does “success” look like for a philanthropy adviser? (i.e. more giving, ‘better giving’, both?)
What are some of the biggest challenges/frustrations for philanthropy advisers?
How common is it for private banks/wealth management firms to offer philanthropy advice?
When they do, is this seen as a business proposition (i.e. by increasing client retention, strengthening relationships etc), or part of the company’s social responsibility?
What are the core skills you need to be a philanthropy adviser?
What is the relationship like between philanthropy advisers and fundraisers? Do the latter see the former as useful points of contact with wealthy donors, or unhelpful gatekeepers?
What role can philanthropy advisers play in helping to manage the transfer of wealth between generations?
Are there any signs that next gen donors are more or less willing to seek advice on their giving?
Are next gen donors looking for the same kind of advice as previous generations or different kinds?
How much power do advisers have to shape donor’s giving?
Does this bring responsibilities (e.g. to be transparent about who they are, and what role they play?)
How many advisers see it as part of their role to make donors aware of critiques of philanthropy and offer them ways of addressing them?
This episode is the first of what will hopefully be a regular series, in partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), in which we discuss their quarterly Research Notes. This is a new project that will produce short, accessible summaries of recent academic research relating to philanthropy, with the aim of bringing research to a wider audience of practitioners, policymakers and others.
In this initial episode, Rhod talks briefly to Barry Hoolwerf, Executive Director of ERNOP, and Sevda Kilicalp, Head of Research & Knowledge at Philea (one of the key European philanthropy infrastructure bodies) about why and how the research note project has come about, and what some of the challenges are when it comes to bridging the gap between academia and practice in philanthropy.
There are then 3 short interviews with academics whose work is featured in the initial set of research notes, about the focus of their research, key findings and why it is relevant to practitioners: - Giedre Lideikyte Huber, from the University of Geneva - Elisa Ricciuti, now an independent researcher but formerly at SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan - Malika Ouacha, PhD candidate at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University in the Netherlands
In this episode we talk to Michael Thatcher, CEO of US nonprofit rating service Charity Navigator, about why and how the organisation tries to help people to choose charities more effectively. Including:
What is Charity Navigator? What is its mission and what services does it offer to try to achieve that goal?
What criteria does the Charity Navigator rating system encompass?
What are the biggest challenges when it comes to gathering and providing data on nonprofit organisations?
What are the key audiences for charity ratings and how do they use the information?
Can ratings systems help to address the problem of donors focusing on unhelpful measures like overhead ratios?
How do growing debates about whether measurement in the non-profit world too often becomes a tool for reinforcing the power dynamics between donors and recipients affect the work of charity ratings services and platforms?
One of the functions of a rating service like Charity Navigator is to help keep people safe from charity fraud. How do you do this in a way that boosts trust in non-profits, rather than contributing to cynicism?
Are nonprofit platforms neutral intermediaries, or do they have a role in shaping giving to make it more effective/equitable?
What role does Charity Navigator play in disaster/crisis response? What specific challenges does this pose?
Do platforms like Charity Navigator have any role in rebalancing inequities in how funding is distributed (i.e. by highlighting under-resourced cause areas or geographies)?
What responsibilities do platforms bear for the choice of which organisations do and don’t make it onto their lists? Is it ever necessary to take decisions to exclude certain organisations, even where they are legal?
With increasing focus on giving to social movements, grassroots organisations and even individuals, does Charity Navigator have any plans to expand its ratings beyond traditional non-profits?
What new possibilities might emerging tech offer for Charity Navigator's work in the future?
In this episode we talk to philanthropist Dr Ewan Kirk, founder of the Turner Kirk Trust, about why he believes it is so important that philanthropists are willing to take risks and give the organisations they support 'permission to fail'. Including:
Why is it so important to give charities permission to fail?
What factors make something a “good” failure rather than a “bad” one?
What is the nature of the risk in philanthropy?
Is philanthropy as a whole too risk averse?
Can we do anything to encourage donors/funders to take more risks and be willing to “fail”?
Why is it important, in terms of giving charities the freedom to take risks, that we get away from asking them to deliver specific outcomes?
Should we still try to gauge the effectiveness/success of funding?
Would more unrestricted funding help to foster a culture of risk taking and innovation?
When looking for genuinely transformative solutions to long-standing problems, it is necessary to support ‘upstream’ work (e.g. research, policy and advocacy) as well as ‘downstream’ work (e.g. direct interventions)?
Is there sometimes a danger that philanthropists go too far in looking for “big bets” or “moonshots”, and overlook more immediate issues and potential solutions as a result?
Is it necessary to rein this tendency in at all? (i.e. to set parameters for what is “acceptable risk” when it comes to deploying philanthropic resources?)
If one of the potential “exits” for risk-taking philanthropists is to get the state to adopt innovations or change the way it does things, what is best way of ensuring that this happens?
If philanthropy genuinely has a higher risk tolerance than the public sector, why is that?
Could the state itself become more risk-tolerant, or will it always need philanthropy?
In this episode we take a deep dive into an issue that has been generating a lot of debate recently: is pluralism in philanthropy a good thing, or not? Including:
What has caused the latest furore, and what has the reaction been?
Is philanthropic freedom genuinely under threat, and if so why? Or is this just a straw man?
Should donors and foundations be free to "engage in the unfettered pursuit of their own mission, interests and prerogatives", or are there arguments for constraining this freedom?
Is there an inherent tension in philanthropy between individual liberty and systemic equity? How can we balance these competing demands?
Should we value pluralism because it enables diversity of thought and values, and provides the material for a healthy "battle of ideas" that can strengthen democracy?
Is pluralism a necessary part of allowing marginalised groups and communities to overcome the "tyranny of the majority" and drive social change?
Is accepting that civil society will contain things we may not like or agree with the necessary cost of pluralism? Is this a price worth paying?
Is pluralism a noble idea in theory but naive in practice, when in reality power is skewed towards defence of the status quo and vested interests?
Can everyday giving help to produce a form of pluralism that avoids some of the problems that come when we rely on elite philanthropy?
Do we need to constrain pluralism, and if so how?
To what extent is this a US-specific debate?
Do nonprofits need to be "civil" or "polite" when they disagree? Or does this ignore the historical reality of social change?
On this episode, we talk to philosopher and lawyer Patricia Illingworth about her recent book Giving Now: Accelerating Human Rights for All, and about how we can apply the framework of human rights to some of the big questions about the nature and role of philanthropy. Including:
What does it mean to use human rights as a framework for understanding donor responsibilities?
Is philanthropy a choice or a duty?
Do human rights responsibilities apply to all philanthropy, or just a certain portion of it? If a donor has given substantially to rights-furthering causes, is it acceptable for them to give additionally in a different way?
Would an idealized world still contain philanthropy, or would it be one in which all philanthropy was unnecessary? If there was still some philanthropy in an idealized world, what kind would it be?
Is the rise of “purpose-driven business” and “compassionate capitalism” something we should welcome or be sceptical about?
Should nonprofits always reject tainted donations, or is it possible to “turn bad money into good”?
Can a human rights lens help us to determine whether source of wealth are tainted, and what course of action we should take?
In cases where wealth itself isn’t tainted through its mode of creation, but the donor may be ethically problematic, is it more or less acceptable to take the money?
What is “moral self-licensing” and why does it provide a basis for thinking that nonprofits should not accept untainted money from tainted donors?
Do charities or funders that make use of “poverty porn” infringe on the human rights of recipients? What does this mean for nonprofit fundraising?
Can philanthropy be used to strengthen democracy, or is it inherently anti-democratic?
How can a human rights lens help us to determine when philanthropy is acting positively even though it is running counter to democracy?
Why is a philosophical perspective on philanthropy valuable/important?
In this episode we take a deep dive into the opportunities and challenges that artificial intelligence might bring for philanthropy and civil society. Including:
Why is everyone talking about AI all of a sudden?
What do we actually mean by "AI"?
How much of the talk about "AI For Good" is substantive, and how much is hype?
What are some of the best examples of nonprofits/funders currently making use of AI?
What impact will the emergence of new AI capabilites around process automation, image recognition, natural language processing, content generation etc have on the way that nonprofits work?
What are the risks of "naive automation"? Why should make sure that there are still "humans in the loop"?
How do we guard against the risk of systems like ChatGPT providing false or inaccurate information?
What lessons can we learn from recent examples of nonprofits using ChatGPT and generative AI badly?
How will AI affect the wider financial and regulatory environment for CSOs?
What impact will AI, in the form of recommender algorithms, have on the ways in which we make choices about where and how to give?
Could we see the emergence of fully automated "philgorithms"?
How can nonprofits combat the risks of algorithmic bias, both in terms of how it affects them and the people/communities they serve?
What role can nonprofits play in addressing AI-driven misinformation & disinformation?
What role does civil society have to play in exploring new visions for a "post-work" future?
Should we take warnings of existential risks from AI seriously? If so, what does this mean for philanthropy?
What role should funders/CSOs play in highlighting the potential harms of AI? What barriers prevent them from doing this at present?
In this episode we hear from three academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused Research Notes from the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP). We have:
Claire van Teunenbroek from the University of Twente in the Netherlands, talking about her work on crowdfunding and philanthropy
Tobias Jung from the University of St Andrews in Scotland, talking about his paper on how the concept of spectrality can be applied to further our understanding of philanthropy
Fiona Fairbairn of the University of Kent, talking about her paper on charity galas and whether they are still relevant.
In this episode we talk to Martha Awojobi, Founder/CEO of JMB Consulting about the upcoming BAMEOnline conference and about what it means to bring the principles of anti-racism to bear on philanthropy, charity & fundraising. Including:
How did the BAMEOnline conference come about, who is it for, and why is it needed?
Does philanthropy and the charity sector have a diversity problem?
What does it mean for organisations in the charity and philanthropy world, and those working in them, to be anti-racist?
Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issues that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits?
Is the momentum we saw following the murder of George Floyd in 2020 being maintained, or are racial justice efforts already stalling?
Can “funder ego” or a “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?
Does prioritisation of certain kinds of knowledge act as a barrier? How is this reflected in grant application processes, funding decisions etc?
Does the success of XR, BLM and other “new power” organisations suggest that there is untapped appetite for participation and power sharing?
Does the ability of social movements to be more overtly political, or to employ more challenging tactics (e.g. protest, direct action), give them an advantage over civil society organisations (CSOs) that might be more constrained by legal/regulatory requirements?
What role can storytelling and the creative arts play in allowing us to imagine different ways of doing things?
What is needed to get more of this in civil society and the charity sector?
Why is it important to understand the historic roots of the wealth, institutions and practices we have in philanthropy?
What should philanthropic orgs do about links to historic racial injustices? Is it enough to acknowledge them, or do they need to go beyond that and seek means to make reparations somehow?
Is philanthropy a reflection of the “circumstances of economic injustice” that Dr Martin Luther King identified, and therefore too often part of the problem? How can we make it be part of the solution?
In this episode, we talk to Lorena Gonzalez and Jes Olvera from the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights about their work supporting unaccompanied child migrants in the US, and what it means to put justice at the heart of their approach to philanthropy. Including:
What is the current landscape of philanthropic funding for immigrant rights like in the US?
The issue of immigration is highly politicised (especially in the US), so when working as a funder in this field do you try to depoliticise it, or accept the reality that it will inevitably be seen through a political lens and work accordingly?
Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them?
Can “funder ego” or “saviour mindset” present barriers to genuine efforts to share power?
Is this a particular problem when working with children, because there is a natural tendency to act in a paternalistic way towards them and want to “save” them?
What happens when there is also a racial element to this power dynamic?
How can funders overcome any concerns they might have about the perceived risks of shifting power into the hands of young immigrants?
What is Community-Centric Fundraising, and why has the Young Center adopted these principles in its work?
Why is core-cost and multi-year funding so important when supporting movements and grassroots orgs?
Does a focus on justice and solidarity require taking a different approach to philanthropy? What does this mean in practice?
Does viewing things through the lens of justice change the nature of the relationship between funders and recipients? (I.e., they are no longer “beneficiaries” in receipt of a “gift”, but rather able to make justice-based claims for things they are due by rights).
Do we need to measure impact in social change or social justice philanthropy? If so, how can we do it in a way that helps rather than harms grantees?
In this episode we talk to Aaron Horvath, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy & Civil Society, about his research on how nonprofits responded in an unexpected way to new regulatory reporting demands- going well above and beyond what was expected of them. Including:
What is the notion of "supererogation" and how is it applied in this research to analyse the response of nonprofits to new accountability demands?
Why did nonprofits choose to report more than was asked of them?
Are there any risks involved in doing so?
What form does supererogation take? Is it primarily narrative (i.e. nonprofits adding contextual written information to “tell their story”) or do they also create alternative quantitative measures?
Is supererogation with respect to external measures a demonstration of empowerment, or does it reflect disempowerment?
Why has there been an increased emphasis on measurement and metrics in the nonprofit world?
Is there a danger that external metrics reinforce the tendency for nonprofits to see themselves as accountable to regulators, funders or donors, rather than to their recipients?
Do rankings and ratings lead to a greater degree of homogeneity in the nonprofit world?
Is the desire to have metrics that can be applied equally to all CSOs regardless of cause area fundamentally misguided?
If there are elements of value in the work of civil society that we cannot capture in any of our current measurement systems, do we need to find better ways of measuring, or give up on the idea that everything is measurable?
Has the tide turned against metrics and impact measurement in the nonprofit world in recent years? If so, why?
Why have LLCs become popular among certain groups of elite donors? Should we believe the narratives about a greater desire for flexibility, or be sceptical about whether it is driven more by a desire to bypass mimimal transparency and accountability requirements?
Do LLCs undermine the “Grand Bargain”, in which the power to influence through philanthropy is balanced by accountability to wider society? Was this Grand Bargain actually functioning in practice anyway?
This is the third edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), in which we talk to academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes. In this episode we hear from:
Marlou Ramaekers from Vrije Universitat in Amsterdam, on how behaviour modelling and encouragement from parents and partners influence our informal volunteering
Nina Sooter from the University of Geneva, on using virtual reality for fundraising
Livia Ventura from the Cambridge Institute of Sustainability Leadership, on applying a theoretical lens to our understanding of B Corporations.
In this episode we talk to Joshua Amponsem, co-founder and Strategy Director of the Youth Climate Justice Fund, a newly-formed organisation that aims to support youth-led climate movements with trust-based funding, resources and youth-to-youth development. We discuss:
How did YCJF come about? What is the organisation's mission and what does it aim to do?
Why is so little philanthropy currently aimed at climate issues? Why is only a tiny fraction of that funding aimed at youth-led climate justice? (Despite the obvious success of youth climate leaders in putting these issues on the agenda).
Do we need to stop seeing climate as a “cause area” and see it instead as a cross-cutting issue that affects all funders and civil society orgs?
What do youth-led climate movements need apart from money? (e.g. leadership training & support, physical protection).
Youth climate movements and activists are often using tactics that traditional nonprofits would shy away from, such as direct action or strategic litigation. Does this present a challenge or an opportunity when it comes to convincing funders to support them?
Is the goal of YCJF to reduce the risk for funders of supporting youth-led climate movements and activists, or to get funders to accept and be comfortable with those risks?
Is there a danger that even well-intentioned funders inadvertently skew the direction of movements by virtue of the choices they make about what to fund and what not to fund? How can we avoid this risk?
How can we ensure that power and decision making within philanthropy is shifted towards the people and communities who would have been seen as the traditional ‘beneficiaries’? Why is this particularly important for youth-led movements?
How is YCJF using participatory methods in its decision-making? What are the strengths of doing so? (And does it also bring challenges?)
Do we need to measure impact in social change or social justice philanthropy? If so, how can we do it in a way that helps rather than harms grantees?
Are there some sources of funding that present particular practical and ethical challenges for climate movements (e.g. money from the fossil fuel industry etc). Is it possible for movements to accept money from these sources without damaging their own legitimacy? If so, what does this require?
In this episode we speak to Sara Lomelin, founding CEO of Philanthropy Together, about the rise of giving circles and the intersection between philanthropy, community and identity. Including:
How did Philanthropy Together come about, and what is the organisation's mission?
Who gets involved in giving circles? Are they different from"typical donors"?
Do collective giving models appeal more to younger donors?
What different approaches to giving circles take to decision-making?
Are there models of collective giving that bring recipients into the decision making process as well as donors?
How much collective giving takes place through long-term giving circles, and how much is through shorter-term “pop-up” collaborations? Is it possible to combine the strengths of both of these approaches?
Are giving circles more likely to give to smaller grassroots orgs that might be perceived as "risky" by institutional funders?
Can collective giving models help to make philanthropy more justice-focussed?
Can collective giving help to build a sense of shared identity, or does it rely on there being a pre-existing sense of identity around which a group can be formed?
How do identity-based groups accommodate intersectional identities?
Does collective giving build social capital? If so, is it merely “bonding” social capital or also “bridging”?
The internet allows us to form communities of interest, identity or purpose that are not tied to geographic boundaries- in this context, is there still a meaningful relationship between ‘place’ and ‘community’?
How can we learn more effectively from other cultures of giving where collective or horizontal models are more common?
What is the relationship between collective giving and mutual aid? Is it more common to see a focus on notions such as solidarity when people are giving collectively?
Do collective giving models address some of the concerns about the potentially anti-democratic nature of elite philanthropy?
Should elite philanthropy fund collective giving models in recognition of their unique value? Or should elite philanthropists adopt practices and insights from collective giving?
In this episode we speak to Elizabeth Barajas-Román, President & CEO of the Women's Funding Network, about taking a feminist approach to funding and what more philanthropy should be doing to drive gender equity. Including:
What does it mean to be a feminist funder?
Is feminist funding just for those who are interested in gender and women's issues, or can the principles be applied by funders in other areas?
What are the similarities and the differences in terms of the context for gender equity issues across different geographic regions?
How important is it to take an intersectional approach when funding gender issues?
Is it ever a challenge to balance specificity in focusing on the particular needs of intersectional groups against the desire to address gender-based issues more broadly? Or can the two be mutually reinforcing?
How important is the rise of women as donors (individually, or using collective models) for ensuring the growth of gender equity funding?
What impact has the US Supreme Court's decision to roll back the abortion rights in Roe v Wade had on the landscape for gender equity and women's philanthropy in the US?
Has it had an impact on gender equity and women's rights orgs work in other countries too?
Does the rollback of Roe vs Wade suggest that philanthropic funders in the US were complacent about the need to defend previously won freedoms? Does it suggest that gender issues were not taken seriously enough?
Is philanthropy too often paternalistic, and centered on decisions being made about communities rather than by them? Is this a particular problem for women’s organisations?
Is there a risk that funders can co-opt social movements or grassroots orgs, by deliberately introducing grant stipulations etc aimed to direct the focus of the movement away from controversial areas or soften their tactics?
Do participatory approaches come more naturally to orgs with roots in the history of feminism and women's rights? What can other funders learn from them?
In this episode we talk to Dr Farahnaz Karim, Founder & CEO of Insaan Group, about catalytic philanthropy, impact investing and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Including:
What does Insaan Group do, and how did the organisation come about?
What does the current impact investing market landscape look like? Where is the money coming from, and where is it going?
How do we ensure that the focus on social, as well as financial, returns is maintained in impact investing?
Is it appropriate to use philanthropic grant money as "first loss" capital to lower the risk of impact investments and make them more appealing?
Has the emergence of impact investing increased the overall volume of resources aimed at social good, or is there a danger it is "cannibalising" money that might otherwise have been given as traditional donations?
What is the role of government in relation to impact investing and philanthropy?
Are social enterprise models a good way of developing trust in places where levels of trust in traditional philanthropy/NGOs are low?
Can investment-type relationships be more empowering for those on the receiving end than gift-type relationships?
Are the SDGs broadly focussed on the right things, or are there obvious gaps?
Is the appeal of the SDGs partly pragmatic i.e. that even if they are not perfect, they represent a widely-understood and agreed framework for prioritisation and measurement?
Is it a challenge for the SDGs that they are so huge in scale it can be difficult for individual organisations to relate them to their work?
When it comes to impact measurement, do we need to balance quantitative data with qualitative data?
Can technology play a role in making it easier to capture qualitative data?
As is now tradition, in our final episode of the year we take a look at some of the key themes and trends in philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what 2024 might bring. In this first of two parts, we explore developments in the wider political and economic landscape, as well as taking a deep dive into what to expect in philanthropy, everyday giving, grantmaking and the nonprofit sector. Including:
Given the number of major elections worldwide, and the ongoing rise of political populism, will 2024 be a pivotal year from democracy?
Will there be further attempts to roll back hard fought aspects of social progress?
Will be see a global economic slowdown, or recession?
Is there a danger of climate becoming politicised as an issue at the exact moment we need more concerted action?
Will we move from talking about a decline in giving to taking action to address the challenge?
Will we see further focus on the need to broaden our understanding of philanthropy and to learn from other cultures?
Are concerns about the risks of allowing philanthropy to become 'platformised' going to become more acute?
Will giving in response to conflicts test the limits of what we are willing to count as philanthropy?
After a long period in which “efficiency” and “rationality” has been emphasised, are we seeing people reclaim the importance of "heart" in philanthropy?
Will we see more criticism of billionaire wealth? What will this mean for elite philanthropy?
Will the continued emergence of next gen donors start to shift philanthropic norms?
Will the rise of China and India start to shift the centre of gravity of global philanthropy?
Will we see more instances of donors withdrawing support for recipients over disagreements about positioning on contentious issues?
Will we see a shift in debates about tainted donations, with more emphasis on accepting money as a default?
Will we see the idea that companies can combine profit with purpose come in for further scrutiny (or criticism)?
Will the continuing loss of infrastructure start to put a strain on the charity sector?
How will traditional charities and funders respond to the growing prominence of social movements?
As is now tradition, in our final episode of the year we take a look at some of the key themes and trends in philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what the coming year might bring. In this second of two parts, we focus on the opportunities and challenges that technology will bring. Including:
Will Twitter (oh, alright, "X") finally give up and die? Will we settle on a replacement? And should we even do that, or should we rethink the whole idea of social media?
Will the ongoing rise of influencer philanthropy, epitomised by MrBeast, bring more criticism and more pushback?
Will the emergence of generative AI and its integration into already-ubiquitous tools lead to new opportunities for nonprofits in terms of productivity, accessibility and creativity?
Will we see further scandals over nonprofit use of AI-generated content?
Will legal and ethical concerns about infringement of copyright and intellectual property rights in the creation of genAI tools have any impact on their use by nonprofits?
Will recommender algorithms start to reshape how people make choices about giving?
Will the "boomers" vs "doomers" narrative about the future of AI become entrenched, and will this create challenges for CSOs trying to highlight more immediate AI risks?
Are new AI capabilities going to turbocharge cybersecurity risks?
Is there any point caring about crypto and blockchain any more?
Will the metaverse develop in a meaningful way, or is the required infrastructure still lacking?
Are we beginning the transition towards a radically different future of work as a result of automation? What might this mean for philanthropy and civil society?
Will we see more philanthropic funders get involved in debates over population slowdown? Does this risk taking them into ethically challenging ground?
In this episode we talk to J. Bob Alotta - SVP, Global Progammes at Mozilla - about what is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence, philanthropy and civil society. Including:
What role can open source approaches play in ensuring that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What is Mozilla funding in this area, and how much other philanthropic funding is currently focussed on these kinds of initiatives?
How optimistic should we be about the potential for developing open source approaches to AI at a time when there is such huge commercial competition surrounding the technology? What will be required to make this happen?
What is the aim of the new $200m Philanthropic Coalition on AI that Mozilla has joined?
Why has Mozilla chosen to use the approach of funding individuals through its Fellowship program?
What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?
How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible?
Is the focus of some philanthropic funders and donors on the perceived existential risks of Artificial General Intelligence a distraction from the more immediate short term challenges the technology poses?
What role has Effective Altruism played in making X risks the focus of philanthropic funding for AI research?
What should we be focussing on as the most important immediate challenges with AI?
Does the current turmoil at OpenAI suggest that trying to combine commercial drivers and philanthropic goals is a real challenge when it comes to the development of AI? Does Mozilla’s own hybrid structure have lessons for how we can do this well?
Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?
Do CSOs currently have the knowledge and capabilities to engage in these debates? If not, what new support and infrastructure do they need to do so (and what role can philanthropy play in achieving this?)
In the fourth edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes. In this episode we hear from:
Pamala Wiepking (Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, IUPUI & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) and Arjen De Wit ( Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam ), about developing a conceptual model to understand the benefits of core funding for nonprofit organisations
Ali Body (Centre for Philanthropy, University of Kent) about integrating philanthropy as a teaching tool within university courses.
Rita Kottasz (Kingston University), about understanding what motivates people to give to food banks, and about creating a typology of disintermediation in the nonprofit sphere.
In this episode we speak to Mary Rose Gunn, Founder and CEO of The Fore, about why small charitable organisations are so valuable and how to support them to thrive. Including:
How did The Fore come about, and what does the organisation exist to do?
Is there too much competition and not enough collaboration in the charity sector? Why is this?
How can we design more collaborative approaches? What kinds of resources and infrastructure will this require?
How can philanthropic funders collaborate with the public sector more effectively?
Do small charities have unique value (i.e. compared to larger ones?)
Is one of the biggest barriers to philanthropic funders supporting small charities simply finding them in the first place? What can we do to overcome this barrier
Why is core cost funding so important for small charities and civil society organisations?
What do small charities tend to use the money from core funding for?
Should all small charities be aiming to grow and achieve scale, or is this not always the right goal? How can an organisation know?
How important is resilience for small charities? What does this mean in practice?
How big a challenge currently is burnout for leaders of small charities?
What is required to make core cost funding work from the funder’s point of view?
Is part of the problem with the “overhead myth” that donors want some measure of the effectiveness of their giving, and in the absence of compelling evidence they are forced to rely on unhelpful financial measures like overhead ratios? What can we do to provide them with better metrics?
What challenges do current grant application processes present for charities?
Does this particularly disadvantage smaller organisations?
When making relatively small grants, how do you maximise their impact?
What additional support beyond just the money do small charities need? How does Fore provide this?
What is required to make skilled volunteering work effectively?
What kind of due diligence do donors need to do on small charities in order to fund them in a trust-based way?
In this episode we discuss the 'Wealth Shared' project that took place in 2023 in Liverpool, UK - in which 12 randomly-selected citizens of the L8 postcode were given the chance to decide how £100K was given away. We talk to project founder David Clarke, who provided the money and designed the approach, and also hear briefly from Anne-Marie Gilleece, one of the 12 participants who got to make the decision. Including:
What was the thinking behind the project?
What primarily drove the design? Was it a desire to make distribution of money more effective; concerns about democratic legitimacy; or an interest in the value of the process for those participating?
How much latitude did the project allow participants in terms of choosing where the money went? What was the thinking behind any restrictions?
What was most interesting or surprising about the deliberation meetings?
Were there any moments of conflict? How were these handled?
Were there any challenges in interacting with participants as the donor?
How did data inform the decision making?
To what extent were participants’ choices informed by awareness of the political context?
How much of what happened was specific to the context of Liverpool?
How important was the strong sense of existing identity associated with the L8 postcode in giving the group cohesion? Or would the shared responsibility of giving away money be enough to bind a more disparate group around a sense of common purpose?
Was it a surprise that the group decided to give to organisations based locally?
What discussions did the group have about how the money should be given? (i.e. did they want to stipulate that it had to be used in certain ways, or were they happy to give unrestricted gifts?)
Was there discussion about effectiveness? What form did this take?
Did the grant recipients see particular value in this process?
Is this something that only works if driven by an individual donor who is willing to cede control? Or are there elements of the approach that could be adopted by institutional funders as well?
Could a similar approach could work in other places?
BBC News article about Austrian heiress Marlene Englehorn, who is doing a similar project involving randomly-selected citizens in deciding how to give money away.
On this episode we take an in-depth look at the 2023 documentary film "UnCharitable", based on the book and TED talk by Dan Pallotta, which argues that the current funding model for the nonprofit sector is broken. Including -An interview with the Director of the film, Stephen Gyllenhaal, in which he talks about how the film came about, what he learned through making it, and what the plans are next for taking the film's aims forward. -A critical assessment of the film -Some short perspectives from a few of the attendees at a recent screening of the film held in London (organised by Why Philanthropy Matters and kindly hosted and made possible by Vitol Foundation): Natasha Friend from Camden giving, Amy Braier from Pears Foundation, Angela Kail from NPC and Ruo Wu and Alison Talbot from Winckworth Sherwood.
In this episode we talk to Australian philanthropy expert Krystian Seibert about his work with the Productivity Commission's Public Inquiry on philanthropy, including their recent draft report "Future Foundations for Giving" which sets out findings and recommendations on developing philanthropy in Australia. Including:
How did the Productivity Commission report on philanthropy come about, and what is the aim behind it?
What is the history and current context for civil society in Australia?
Do recent critiques of philanthropy in the US and elsewhere resonate in the Australian context? (E.g. that philanthropy exacerbates inequality, that it is anti-democratic, that some sources of wealth are “tainted” etc.)
Are the levers for using government policy to influence philanthropy necessarily limited by the fact that it is inherently something that exist independently of govt and is based on the free choices of individuals?
Is there anything we can do to be more ambitious when it comes to using policymaking to build a stronger culture of philanthropy?
Does government have a wider role in setting a positive narrative about the role of giving (even if this doesn’t involve actual funding or policy change?)
What does the current system for tax relief on donations in Australia look like
What is the underlying rationale for governments offering tax relief on donations?
Why does the productivity Commission report conclude that the current system is “not fit for purpose” and what is recommended to remedy this?
Why is it so important to have a philanthropic funding body owned and operated by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities? (Is a practical thing about money not currently getting to where it needs to, or a more principled argument based on claims of justice?)
Does the negative result of the 2023 referendum on establishing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice mechanism bolster the case for a philanthropic entity of kind outlined, or does it make it make it harder to achieve?
Do private ancillary funds correspond that what we would call foundations in the US/UK context?
How much pressure is there currently in Australia to consider increasing the minimum payout requirements?
What role can government play in improving the data landscape around philanthropy?
In the fifth edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.
In this episode we hear from:
Arthur Gautier from ESSEC Business School, about his work exploring how wealthy people's life experiences shape their views on the relationship between impact investing and philanthropy
Isabel de Bruin from Erasmus University, about her research on how the "NGO halo effect" (i.e. the inflated sense of moral goodness that nonprofit organisations and their employees might feel) can contribute to unethical behaviour.
Janis Petzinger from St Andrews University about her work theorizing the role that philanthropic foundations play in the global policy sphere.
In this episode we hear from author Amy Schiller about her fascinating and thought provoking new book The Price of Humanity: How philanthropy went wrong and how to fix it. Including:
Has our understanding of philanthropy has become too centred on the idea that it is solely about funding things that make human life possible, rather than those that make it worthwhile?
Is there a danger that philanthropy which becomes too focussed on seeing human life in terms of basic existence ends up “othering” poor people and seeing them as a distinct group (to be pitied/helped), and thereby dehumanises them?
Is it difficult to argue for the value of beauty, love, transcendent experience etc in a philanthropy and nonprofit sector that has becoming increasingly technocratic and instrumentalist?
What is the Aristotelean notion of magnificence, and why should philanthropy embrace it?
Is there any danger that in emphasising philanthropy’s role in funding the transcendent we allow wealthy people off the hook for their responsibilities to society and just allow them to donate to what they wanted to anyway?
The book argues that we should not view philanthropy as something which backfills or replaces state provision, and that in an ideal world, basic welfare needs would be met by the state and philanthropy would then focus on things that add value to human life above and beyond bare existence. In the present we still seem quite far from that, however, so does philanthropy also need to play a role bringing this ideal world about? (And does this take short-term precedence over it funding things that are transcendent? Or do we need to do both?)
Why were justice and inequality-centred arguments against the philanthropic response to the Notre Dame fire potentially misguided?
Are current paradigms of measurement in philanthropy and the non-profit world too focussed on economic utility as the core criterion?
The book argues for the idea of a “giving wage” – why is it so important that universal state support factors in the need to enable people to act philanthropically?
Is philanthropy inherently a child of capitalism (and the resultant inequality it creates), or can it be used to create spaces that sit outside the capitalist system?
In this episode we talk to historian Anelise Hanson Shrout about her fascinating new book Aiding Ireland: The Great Famine and the rise of transnational philanthropy. Including:
Was the global philanthropic response to the Irish famine unprecedented at that point?
Is the response best explained by the fact the famine was able to act as an “empty signifier” which allowed a wide range of groups to interpret the situation according to their own worldview and to imbue their giving with different meaning?
Is this something we still see in transnational philanthropy today?
To what extent did the severity of the famine shift emphasis onto more immediate pragmatic responses and away from radical calls for political reform?
Was support for Irish famine relief in England driven by genuine concern for the plight of the Irish or by fears of mass migration to English cities?
How important in the debates about famine relief was the distinction between “deserving” and “undeserving” recipients?
To what extent did the Irish Famine lead the US to consider responsibilities to the wider world? Was this sense of globalism/humanitarianism new at this point?
How did both enslaved people and slave owners in the US respond to the Irish famine?
Were there debates at the time about the ethics of accepting donations from slave owners, or did the severity of the famine force people into adopting a purely pragmatic approach?
Did the Irish famine prove particularly useful to slaveowners as a means of demonstrating their own humanity and moral worth through philanthropy?
How did some enslaved people use philanthropic donations towards famine relief in Ireland to assert their own agency and humanity?
Should this be understood solely as a political act of “philanthropy-as-resistance”, or was there some element of empathy or solidarity in it?
How was the news of donations by enslaved people greeted by slaveowners and by white Americans more broadly? Did they try to ignore it, or interpret it according to their own worldviews (and if so, how?)
How should we understand the gifts made by people from the Cherokee and Choctaw Nations to Irish famine relief?
In this episode we talk to Fozia Irfan OBE, Director of Impact & Influence at BBC Children in Need and recent Churchill Fellow, about her report Transformative Philanthropy: A Manual for Social Change, and about how philanthropy in the UK needs to change if it is to become a better tool for delivering social justice. Including:
What does it mean to apply a social justice framing to philanthropy?
Is this applicable to all foundations, regardless of cause area?
Is the conversation about philanthropy reform more sophisticated in the US?
Why is historical perspective important for funders when it comes to understanding their cause areas and the role of philanthropy?
Why do funders need to understand the different philosophical traditions that might underpin a focus on social justice?
Why is it so important for funders to express a clear and specific vision? Are there examples of organisations that do this well already?
What does it mean for funders to be community-centric?
What does it mean to take an intersectional view of issues, and why is it important?
Why should foundations engage in movement building?
Is the current enthusiasm for social movements reflective of a frustration people have that traditional nonprofits have failed to move the needle on issues such as the climate crisis or racial justice?
Does the ability of social movements to be more overtly political, or to employ more challenging tactics (e.g. protest, direct action), give them an advantage over civil society organisations (CSOs) that might be more constrained by legal/regulatory requirements?
What does it mean for foundations to be cross-sectoral and multi-dimensional? Why are they not currently doing this?
Do we look at institutional philanthropy too narrowly through the lens of grantmaking, and thus fail to take into account the importance of other potential tools (e.g. campaigning, storytelling etc)?
Why is it important to understand the historic roots of the wealth, institutions and practices we have in philanthropy?
What should philanthropic orgs do about links to historic racial injustices? Is it enough to acknowledge them, or do they need to go beyond that and seek means to make reparations somehow?
Should we take a pragmatic approach to improving philanthropy (i.e. working with existing structures to improve them) or "burn everything to the ground" as some more radical voices argue we should?
In this episode we talk to Ian MacQuillin, Founder and Director of the fundraising think tank Rogare about the promise and perils of disintermediation in the charity sector, what a theory of fundraising ethics looks like, and why knowing more about the history of fundraising is important. Including:
How did Rogare came about?
What are the aims of the organisation, and what are its key themes/areas of interest currently?
What is the current state of academic research on fundraising and charities? How much of this influences practice? What barriers are in the way of this happening more?
Disintermediation
What is disintermediation and why is it an important trend ?
What are the different ways in which disintermediation can apply to the work of charities?
What benefits and risks can disintermediation bring for donors and charities?
If people are able to give in disintermediated ways instead of via traditional charities, does this matter? Should we just accept it as a natural evolution, or is something in danger of being lost?
What, if anything, can the various examples of controversy that have arisen around crowdfunding and other forms of disintermediated giving tell us about the value of the role that traditional charities play?
What is "normative fundraising ethics"?
Does normative fundraising ethics need to go above and beyond what is allowable in legal or regulatory terms? If so, what is the basis for the normative principles?
Is there a danger that the purpose-driven nature of charities brings about a form of (perhaps subconscious) consequentialism in fundraising (i.e. the end justifies the means, because the cause I am fundraising for is “worthy” or “good”)?
Is it part of the nature of fundraising to be challenging? (e.g. making people uncomfortable in order to elicit an empathetic response, pushing them to give more than they might do if left to their own devices). Or does this raise ethical issues about the undermining of individual choice and agency?
Tainted Donations
Why are tainted donations such a perennial challenge for charities and fundraisers?
How could a normative ethics framework help to inform our thinking about tainted donations?
Community-Centric & Donor-Centric Fundraising
What is the distinction between Donor-centric fundraising (DCF) and Community-centric fundraising (CCF), and why has it become such a point of controversy and debate?
Are the arguments in favour of DCF solely pragmatic ones (i.e. that it works), and conversely are the arguments in favour of CCF solely principled ones (i.e. that it is the “right” thing to do) or are there principled and pragmatic arguments for both?
Is it possible to balance the demands of DCF and CCF?
Why is a historical perspective on fundraising valuable?
In this episode we talk to Kate Symondson, Head of Philanthropy at the Symondson Foundation, about family foundations, grantmaking & next gen philanthropy. Including
How do the various members of a family foundation agree on what to fund and how?
Which aspects of giving as a family are most rewarding, and which most challenging?
Does doing philanthropy together have an impact on inter-family dynamics?
Do Next Gen wealth holders have distinctive characteristics when it comes to their attitudes towards philanthropy, or their methods of doing it?
Is it even helpful to talk about Next Gen philanthropy?
How easy is it for younger philanthropists to develop networks with like-minded peers?
How can funders strike the right balance between trust and measurement?
What kind of due diligence do donors need to do on small charities in order to fund them in a trust-based way?
How do you mitigate the power imbalance between funders and grantees?
Is philanthropy a duty or a choice?
Is it OK for philanthropists to get a reward from their giving?
Is growing scrutiny of where philanthropic wealth has come from a good thing?
Should foundations’ missions be reflected in their investments as well as their grants?
Is it important to scrutinise or critique philanthropy? If so, why
Is it a challenge to get nuanced or balanced discussion about philanthropy issues in an increasingly polarised environment?
In this episode we talk to philanthropy and social change experts Mandy van Deven and Chiara Cattaneo about their work on building and resourcing narrative power within civil society. Including:
What is narrative power and why is it such an important tool for CSOs?
Does narrative work tend to focus more on developing narratives that are relevant to cause areas in which philanthropic organisations work, or on developing narratives aboutthe nature and role of philanthropy itself?
What are the most prevalent narratives about philanthropy that need to be challenged or changed?
What are the advantages of adopting an ecosystem approach to resourcing narrative work? How can funders support the various actors in the ecosystem to work well together?
What infrastructure is required to enable CSOs to make the most of narrative as a tool?
What particular role can foundations play in supporting narrative infrastructure?
To what extent does developing narrative power require a willingness not to set specific goals/ timescales or to demand attribution of inputs to outcomes? Does this potentially make it harder to resource if funders demand measurability?
How do you manage the tension between the urgency of issues such as climate breakdown or racial injustice and the fact that narrative work often requires patience and a willingness to work over longer timescales?
In the sixth edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.
In this episode we hear from:
René Bekkers (Vrije University, Amsterdam), about his work on measuring coherence and consensus within the growing field of nonprofit studies
Tara Bryan (University of Nebraska, Omaha) & Vladimír Hyánek (Masaryk Universtiy, Brno), about their work on the impact of migration caused by the invasion of Ukraine on resilience in Czech NGOs.
Julia Litofcenko (Vienna University of Economics and Business), about her work on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on charitable giving in Germany and Austria.
If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work.
Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supportiong ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member:
In this episode, we sat down to talk about how we understand and measure global generosity with Pamala Wiepking, Stead Family Chair in International Philanthropy and Associate Professor of Philanthropy at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at IUPUI in Indianapolis (and also Professor of Societal Significance of Charitable Lotteries at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Including:
Is “philanthropy” a helpful word in a global context?
If not, why not: do people not understand it, or do they understand it, but with particular connotations?
If we use terms such as ”generosity” instead, is there still a use for “philanthropy” to denote a specific subset of that activity? (And if so, what subset?)
Is there any danger that if we broaden our definitions of generosity too far in our desire to make them more universal, they will become meaningless?
Do we need a “grand theory” of global generosity?
What are the obvious gaps, biases and limitations in our current knowledge about generosity at a global level?
Is it useful to distinguish between philanthropic giving based on traditions of charity/altruism and other forms of giving grounded in traditions of mutualism/reciprocity? Or should we blur these distinctions within a wider conception of generosity?
How important is it to “decolonize philanthropy research” as well as expanding our definitions of generosity?
Is the role of philanthropy academics simply to observe and analyse giving and generosity, or to encourage it?
Are current measures of global generosity useful? If not, why not?
Apart from the challenges of finding appropriate definitions, are there other barriers to measuring generosity at a global level?
Are we in the midst of a "generosity crisis", or is the apparent decline in giving in places like the US, the UK and the Netherlands merely a reflection of the fact that the way we measure generosity has failed to evolve in step with how people actually choose to give?
Should the policy mechanisms we currently use to encourage and support philanthropic giving (e.g. tax reliefs) be adapted to encompass a broader range of activities that fit within an expanded definition of generosity?
In this episode we take a deep dive into the world of philanthropic foundations. What are they, how did they evolve, and what light can their history shed on continuing debates about the role of foundations in our society today? Including:
What are the key features that define philanthropic foundations?
Are these consistent around the world and across time periods?
Why do foundations often act as a lightning rod for wider concerns about philanthropy?
The historical origins of western foundations: ancient Roman fideicommissium or Islamic waqf?
The growth of the charitable trust in medieval England
Reformation, industrialisation and the slow secularisation of charitable foundations
"Zombie" foundations in C19th London and calls for reform
The birth of the giant general purpose foundations in 20th century America: why was this so surprising, and why has it proven so influential?
Growing concerns about foundation abuses in mid C20th US, and the passage of the 1969 Tax Act
The "Dead Hand of the Donor" and critiques of perpetual endowments
Do foundations deserve their tax advantages? Should they be made to work harder for them?
Do endowed foundations have a unique role to play in taking risks and driving innovation when it comes to addressing society's needs? How much of what foundations currently do lives up to this ambition?
Are foundations an important expression of philanthropic pluralism? Why is the legitimacy of this pluralism being questioned more than ever before?
Do foundations need to be more open and transparent? If so, about what?
Are foundations "repugnant to the whole idea of a democratic society", or can they play a positive role in strengthening democracy?
How do concerns about "tainted" wealth affect the legitimacy of foundation philanthropy?
In the seventh edition of our partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.
In this episode we hear from:
Georg von Schnurbein (Centre for Philanthropy Studies, University of Basel), on research looking at specialist "foundation investment funds" in Germany and whether they facilitate sustainable investing.
Joris Schröder (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam), on research exploring the impact of talking about donations and receiving word of mouth solicitations on people's willingness to donate blood.
Jörg Lindenmeier (Universität Freiburg), on research into whether "charitable ethnocentrism" reduces the likelihood of some donors to give internationally
If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work.
Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supportiong ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member:
In this episode we take a deep dive into the relationship between philanthropy and social justice. Does philanthropy necessarily deliver social justice; does it only do so under certain conditions, or does it sometimes actively get in the way of social justice? Including:
Philanthropy as an individual act vs philanthropy as a societal mechanism, and why this creates a tension between emphasis on individual liberty and emphasis on justice.
How changes in the understanding of property during the Enlightenment changed our understanding of charity.
The emergence of a radical new notion of social justice and a critique of charity.
The growth of contrasting ideas about property ownership that led to a new notion of "discriminating charity", and why this became so influential during the C19th.
The influence of these ideas on Andrew Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth" and why that was so pivotal.
Philanthropy as "riot insurance".
Does justice demand that we replace philanthropy with taxation, or can the two coexist?
Why are some philanthropist campaigning for higher taxes?
The history of the philanthropist as "agitator"
Philanthropy and social movements: recipe for justice, or uneasy bedfellows?
Radical philanthropy: history and current context.
In this episode we talk to Lisa Greer, philanthropist and author of "The Essential Fundraiser's Handbook" and "Philanthropy Revolution", about how philanthropy and fundraising interact and what we could be doing better. Including:
Have fundraisers become too reliant on the tools they use, rather than the deeper skills of relationship building?
Do the incentive and reward structures in many nonprofit fundraising departments make it harder for fundraisers to focus on long-term relationship building?
Should nonprofits show gratitude to donors? How can they do this in appropriate ways?
Do we need to distinguish more clearly between the idea of expressing thanks towards donors and debates over public recognition and naming rights?
What impact is the forthcoming intergenerational wealth transfer is going to have on philanthropy and fundraising?
Do Next Gen wealth holders have distinctive characteristics when it comes to their attitudes towards philanthropy, or their methods of doing it?
What can nonprofits do to develop relationships with donors from younger generations?
Is there still a justification for nonprofit galas in this day and age?
Why are recurring donations important, and how can nonprofits harness them effectively?
Why, despite the huge growth in DAFs in the US (and elsewhere) does there remain widespread suspicion about them in the nonprofit sector?
Would better awareness among fundraisers, and a norm of encouraging/enabling DAF donations potentially help to overcome concerns about money getting “warehoused” in DAFs?
How can a nonprofit determine when a donor is making unreasonable demands or acting in an inappropriate way?
Is it ever possible to manage these situations and keep the donor on board, or is it better simply to end the relationship?
Is fundraising sufficiently recognised and valued in the nonprofit world?
Why are there such high levels of burnout in fundraising (and in nonprofits generally) right now?
Why has the debate between between “Donor-centric fundraising” (DCF) and “Community-centric fundraising” (CCF) become increasingly fractious? Is there room to find common middle ground?
In this episode we explore the way that philanthropic donations are taxed. Why do so many governments around the world choose to offer tax breaks for charitable giving? What is the history behind this? How are tax breaks for philanthropy designed and implemented, and are they effective? Including:
What are the possible theoretical justifications for a government choosing to offer tax breaks on philanthropy?
What are the tax base rationale, the subsidy rationale and the pluralism rationale; and why is the latter the only rationale that really works?
Did tax relief on donations in the UK only come about by mistake?
Why did William Gladstone learn to his cost not to mess with charity tax relief?
Do we have the history of DAFs all wrong?
What role did WWI pragmatism play in the introduction of the US charitable deduction?
Are deduction-based or credit-based systems of tax relief more effective (or fairer)?
Why does the UK have a unique (and uniquely messy...) hybrid system?
Is there a case for imposing lower limits (floors) or upper limits (caps) on tax relief for donations?
Which cause areas and organisation types should be eligible for tax relief?
What kinds of assets can be donated with tax relief?
What are the specific policy aims behind a policy of encouraging philanthropy, and are tax reliefs a good way of achieving this?
Why is the US charitable deduction currently under fire?
What proposals have been made to improve the UK Gift Aid system?
In this episode we talk to Milos Maricic (entrepreneur and founder of the Altruist League) and Giuseppe Ugazio (Edmond de Rothschild Assistant Professor of Behavioral Philanthropy at the Geneva Finance Research Institute), the co-editors of the newly published Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy. We discuss:
How the book came about, what is in it, and what the aim of it is.
What are some of the key opportunities that AI might bring for philanthropy and civil society?
What are some good examples of AI being used to address social and environmental issues?
Are these examples skewed towards any particular geographic regions or cause areas? If so, how can we overcome any inequalities?
How are philanthropic organisations using AI to improve their own operations? (e.g. Efficiency, accessibility, impact measurement, grant applications/grant making?)
How much work is there to be done in terms of getting the datasets required to make philanthropy applications of AI feasible?
Is there a skills and knowledge gap in the nonprofit sector when it comes to AI?
If nonprofit engagement with AI requires partnership with tech companies, how do we ensure genuine partnerships (i.e. overcome power imbalances etc)?
Is there a danger that people and organisations from the tech sector are prone to “tech solutionism” (i.e. assuming that all problems, including complex, long-standing social ones, can be solved by technology)? How can civil society mitigate against this tendency?
Should we take concerns about AI-driven automation making human workers redundant seriously? Or, will AI merely open up opportunities to focus on different things?
Does the voice of civil society organisations (and the people and communities they serve) get heard enough in current debates about AI?
What new laws and regulations might be required to ensure that AI is developed in a way that benefits society? What role can philanthropy and CSOs play in ensuring this?
What do we still not know? i.e. where are the most urgent gaps for further research in philanthropy and AI?
In this episode we discuss social investment and impact investing with Scott Greenhalgh, Chair of Social and Sustainable Capital. Including:
Is there a difference between social investment and impact investing? If so, what is it? Do we need to be clearer about this distinction?
What is the relationship of ESG investing to impact investing and social investment?
What is the current size and shape of the impact investment market in the UK (and globally)?
How big a determining factor is govt policy in determining potential opportunities (especially around public service delivery)?
How big a role could philanthropic foundations be playing by deploying their endowed assets for impact investing?
Does impact investment/social investment necessarily involve sacrificing financial return for social return, or are there genuine “win-win” opportunities that deliver both?
Even if there are such opportunities, is there a risk that emphasising or celebrating them will set unrealistic expectations about the market as a whole?
Is it OK to use philanthropic capital or government funding as a way of subsidising returns for impact investors?
Is this only acceptable as a temporary means to an end? I.e. as a way of making an investment appealing at the outset by de-risking it, but with a view to convincing impact investors sufficiently of its longer-term merits that they will invest alone?
Is it difficult to ensure that the focus on social impact is maintained in the impact investing space? (i.e. is there a tendency over time to prioritise financial metrics and returns, which might lead people to invest in “safer” projects and organisations that carry less financial risk but also have lower social returns?)
What ways are there of ensuring that impact investors and their investees maintain a focus on social returns as well as financial returns?
What is the principle of additionality and why is it important?
Should we be concerned about the risk of companies engaging in “impact washing” or “purpose washing”- i.e. adopting the language and trappings of impact investing and social purpose in order to gain a reputational advantage or to offset criticism, but without actually producing any social value?
In this episode we look ahead to 2025, and offer our annual set of predictions-that-aren't-really-predictions-but-more-like-thoughts-about-interesting-trends. This year we consider:
UK Grantmaking on pause
Implementing policies to boost giving
Debate over tax relief for charitable giving
US foundations under populist attack
Next Gen philanthropy and new models
Continued growth of DAFs
Closing space for civil society in the US and beyond
More UK charities to close
Rebalancing head and heart in philanthropy
Population debates, pronatalism and philanthropy
The platformisation of giving
OpenAI and the blurred lines between profit and purpose
The final death of X
Social media influencers and the impatience economy
De-teching and the importance of real-life experiences
The resurgence of crypto
Wearables on the rise, and AR/VR finally goes mainstream
AI ambivalence and the rise of AI slop
Are LLMs a dead end?
GenAI and the erosion of authenticity.
Related links:
Last year's Philanthropisms prediction episode, part 1 and part 2
In the eighth edition of our podcast partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we hear from more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.
In this episode we hear from:
Marlene Walk (University of Freiburg, Germany) and Jamie Levine Daniel (New York University Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service), about their research into how nonprofits can use social media most effectively in the context of competitive philanthropy.
Maikel Meijeren (Radboud University, Netherlands) about his work on what motivates people to volunteer for organisations working with refugees, and whether these are distinct from general motivations for volunteering.
Noelia Salido Andrés (University of A Coruña, Spain) about her research into the factors that determine success in donation-based crowdfunding for charitable causes.
If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work. https://ernop.eu/information-for-practitioner-experts/
Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supporting ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member: https://ernop.eu/member-portal/subscription-plan/
In this episode we talk to Daniel Stid, Director of Lyceum Labs and former Program Director of U.S. Democracy at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, about philanthropy, pluralism and democracy. Including:
Why has the long-standing consensus on the value of philanthropic pluralism been challenged in recent years?
Is there a danger of being naïve about pluralism, and holding up an ideal that it will result in a dynamic equilibrium where views from all sides are able to be heard, when in reality money and influence skews towards one end of the political spectrum? (If so, which end of the spectrum most benefits?)
Where (if at all) should we draw the boundaries of acceptable pluralism? Is this a matter merely for the state to determine through laws, or are there other criteria that might be relevant?
Is it a mistake to think that acceptance of pluralism means you can’t disagree with anyone?
What are the 5 steps of "responsible pluralism" ?
Is the case for responsible pluralism a pragmatic one (i.e. it is in the best interests to promote pluralism as it will make them more effective at achieving their mission) or a principled one (i.e. civil society pluralism is an inherent good)?
Is polarisation now at unprecedented levels in our society, or has it always been a challenge?
Have we simply forgotten how to “disagree well”?
How has this affected philanthropy?
Has social media made things worse, and if so in what ways?
Is there a danger that those at the extreme ends of the spectrum on any issue shout the loudest, and thus give a false sense of how polarised society is, when in reality the majority of people are either closer to the centre or don’t care?
To what extent is philanthropy to blame for polarisation?
How concerned should US nonprofits be that the incoming Trump administration will crack down on civil society freedoms and seek to delegitimise certain orgs?
Is it a good idea for nonprofits to position themselves as the “Resistance” to Trump? Or could this be counterproductive?
Is there any basis for arguing that electoral democracy has become sufficiently debased that it is justifiable to “act anti-democratically to save democracy” through philanthropy? Or is that a dangerous road to go down?
In this episode we talk to political philosopher Ted Lechterman about why philanthropy should be an important topic of study for philosophers, and what some of the key questions a philosophical approach raises are. Including:
Why is a philosophical perspective on philanthropy valuable/important?
Is there a danger that philosophical critiques of philanthropy too often confine themselves to the realms of ideal theory, or fall into the trap of comparing worst-case examples of philanthropy with idealized conceptions of the alternatives (e.g. government)?
Are there substantive qualitative differences between the giving of everyday donors and the giving of the very wealthy, or do the same critical arguments apply to both (albeit perhaps to different degrees)?
Should philanthropy be seen as supererogatory (once the demands of law, justice, social contract etc have been met through taxation?) or should we understand some (or all) philanthropic giving as a form of duty too?
Is philanthropy to some extent a product of structural inequality and injustice, and does this limit its utility as a means of delivering structural reform/injustice?
Do the demands of justice apply to all philanthropy, or just a subset? (i.e. is there room for philanthropic choices that do not meet this criterion? E.g. if a donor has given substantially to justice-furthering causes, is it acceptable for there to be some supererogatory portion that they give in a different way?)
What is the core role of philanthropy within society which differentiates it from either state or market provision?
Can philanthropy be used to strengthen democracy, or is it inherently anti-democratic?
What are the possible theoretical justifications for a government choosing to offer tax breaks on philanthropy?
Was Milton Friedman right that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”? If so, was it for the reasons he outlined or for different reasons?
What should we make of Effective Altruism as a philosophical analysis of philanthropy?
In this episode we discuss climate philanthropy with Edouard Morena, Senior Lecturer in French Studies and International Politics at the University of London Institute in Paris. Including:
How much philanthropy is currently aimed at climate issues?
Can philanthropy play a meaningful role with respect to an issue of the scale of climate? If so, what is that role?
In terms of existing climate philanthropy, what is the balance between downstream activity (i.e. direct interventions designed to address climate breakdown symptoms) and upstream activity (i.e. advocacy and influencing aimed at addressing underlying causes)
Is there a danger of philanthropy skewing focus towards unhelpful “solutions” to climate challenge, or perpetuating the idea that technological “fixes” can be found instead of there being a need for fundamental structural reform?
Is the focus on technological solution reflective of the fact that a growing amount of philanthropic wealth comes from the tech world?
How will the election of Donald Trump affect climate philanthropy?
Will funders "obey in advance" when it comes to the US's new anti-climate stance, or will they position themselves in opposition to it?
Does this raise questions about the democratic legitimacy of philanthropy, even if you agree with the need to fund climate work?
What does it mean to take a justice-based approach to climate funding?
Should more climate philanthropy be aimed at supporting activists and movements?
Youth climate movements and activists are often using tactics that traditional nonprofits would shy away from, such as direct action or strategic litigation. Does this present a challenge or an opportunity when it comes to convincing funders to support them?
Is it particularly difficult to measure the impact of funding movements or individual activists? Does this present a challenge for climate movements?
What will the rise of new centres of global philanthropic power, e.g China, mean for climate philanthropy?
Might this start to rebalance global climate discussions away from their historic skew towards US interests?
In this episode, we talk to Farai Chideya, journalist, writer, academic and lead author of a recent report from Bridgespan Group, "Philanthropy for a Multiracial Democracy: How Investing in Pluralism Can Open the Aperture for Democracy Funders". We discuss:
Why is pluralism so important as an ideal, and what barriers/threats prevent it being realised?
Why is it particularly important to emphasise multiracialism as an aspect of pluralism?
What does it look like in practice to foster pluralism as a philanthropic funder?
Does philanthropic pluralism naturally lead to a pluralistic society, or are there regressive philanthropic actors who want limit pluralism in society? Can we square these two things?
Is there too much focus on elections when it comes to defining democracy-building philanthropy, at the expense of other elements of democracy?
Why is a long-term perspective so important when it comes to funding democracy and pluralism?
Why is collaboration so important?
Why does it often pay to focus at a local level?
How are funders harnessing storytelling and creative arts as tools for fostering pluralism?
Might donors need to look beyond traditional nonprofit structures at times, and support work that is more overtly political? Does there need to be a clear distinction between this work and traditional philanthropy, or at the lines increasingly blurred?
Can progressive funders take any lessons from the successes of conservative philanthropic funders in the US over the last 50 years, when it comes to the power of long-term, unrestricted funding for grassroots organisations as a means of shifting the parameters of political debate?
Do concerns about an authoritarian crackdown on civil society during the2nd Trump administration mean that funders might have to put longer term ambitions of fostering pluralism on hold in order to address more immediate challenges, or is leaning into support pluralism part of an effective response?
Has the idea of pluralism itself become more politicised, and is there a risk that this might make some funders more reluctant to fund this kind of work?
In this episode we talk to Marina Jones, Executive Director of Development & Public Affairs at the English National Opera and project lead on the history of fundraising for the fundraising think tank Rogare. Including:
Why is a historical perspective on fundraising valuable?
Is fundraising a particularly hidden part of the history of charity/philanthropy? If so, why?
Are there useful practical lessons modern fundraisers can learn from their historical counterparts about techniques and approaches that work?
Are there relevant historical lessons about some of the potential ethical issues that arise from fundraising?
Can we find useful historical precedents for some of the recurrent criticisms of fundraising?
How have fundraisers harnessed new communications technologies throughout history (e.g. printing, radio, telegraph, TV)?
What role has commemoration and recognition of donors played in the history of fundraising?
How have celebrities been used for fundraising purposes throughout history
How far back can we trace the idea of using commercial approaches to raise money for charity?
What role did fundraising play in bringing women further into the public sphere?
What can we learn from portrayals of philanthropy and fundraising in literature or popular culture?
In the ninth edition of our podcast partnership with the European Research Network on Philanthropy (ERNOP), we talk to more academics whose work is featured in the latest batch of short, practitioner-focused ERNOP Research Notes.
In this episode we hear from:
Mark Ørberg (Department of Business Humanities and Law, Copenhagen Business School), about his research on Enterprise Foundations
Michele Fugiel Garnter (Carleton University, Ottawa; and formerly University of St Andrews) about her work on the experiences of foundation professionals
Oonagh Breen (Sutherland Law School, University College Dublin) about her work on regulatory reviews of charity law
If you would like to contribute to making academic work accessible and more relevant for people working in, with or for philanthropy, then why not consider becoming an ERNOP practitioner expert and help translate academic work on philanthropy into research notes in close collaboration with the authors of the original work. https://ernop.eu/information-for-practitioner-experts/
Or, if you or your organisation might be interested in supporting ERNOP's wider mission to advance philanthropy research and make it accessible to those working in, with, and for philanthropy, then why not consider joining as a member: https://ernop.eu/member-portal/subscription-plan/
17 Apr 2025
Natasha Friend and Maria Ahmed: Participatory Grantmaking
In this episode we discuss participatory grantmaking with Natasha Friend, Director of Camden Giving, and Maria Ahmed, a participant in Camden Giving's own participatory grantmaking work. Including:
How did Camden Giving’s experiments with participatory grantmaking first come about?
How does it work in practice?
What has been the primary driver for keeping going?
What have been the main insights from grantmaking meetings?
Do the citizen grantmakers have full autonomy over grant decisions, or do they make recommendations that are then considered and implemented by foundation staff?
How do you manage disagreements or differences of opinion?
Are there any constraints on the causes/organisation types that the citizen panels can recommend?
Are all the grants made in the form of unrestricted gifts? If so, over what time period? What is the average size of grant?
Does Camden Giving provide advice or data to help guide decision-making? If so, how do participants make use of this?
Do participatory approaches work particularly well for place-based giving schemes, due to the nature of the donor base?
Could these approaches work for all funders?
Should ALL grantmaking be participatory?
What sort of infrastructure is needed to enable more funders to adopt participatory approaches?
What kind of challenges might there be for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes? How do you overcome these challenges?
How should you measure the impact of participatory grantmaking? Is it this just about the impact on grantees, or does it need to take into account the impact on participants in the process?
Does participatory grant making work best in places that already have a high degree of civic engagement, or can it be a tool for building civic engagement?
Does Camden Giving’s participatory approach act as a motivating factor for any of the donors to the organisation?
Welcome to episode 1 of Philanthropisms! This is the podcast where we put philanthropy in context. Through conversations with expert guests and deep dives into topics, host Rhodri Davies explores giving throughout history, the key trends shaping generosity around the world today and what the future might hold for philanthropy.
In this episode we’re going right back to first principles to ask the question “what is philanthropy and why should you care?” To answer that we will take a whistle-stop tour through more than 2,000 years of history, explore the ways in which philanthropy has been defined by comparison to other concepts, and find out about some of the key debates shaping philanthropy today.
Including:
What does “philanthropisms” mean?
Is philanthropy an inherently vague term (or a “floating signifier”)? Does this stop us using it in practice?
The roots of philanthropy in the ancient world
The development of Judeo-Christian notions of charity
The impact of secular humanism, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution on philanthropy
The Victorian “golden age” of UK giving and the rise of “scientific philanthropy”
How the early C20th US Gilded Age established the paradigm for modern philanthropy (for better or worse)
Defining philanthropy by what it isn’t- “Philanthropy vs…”:
Charity
Altruism
Mutual Aid
Private giving
Commercial activity
State provision
Taxation
Politics
Justice
Why should you care about philanthropy (and therefore listen to this podcast…)?
Related Links
My book “Public Good By Private Means: How Philanthropy Shapes Britain” (PDF version available HERE)
Welcome to Philanthropisms: the podcast that puts philanthropy in context. This is a brief trailer ahead of our launch on 21st Oct.
In this show, through conversations with expert guests and deep dives into topics, host Rhodri Davies will explore giving throughout history, the key trends shaping generosity around the world today and what the future might hold for philanthropy.
In this episode we talk to Lucy Bernholz, Director of the Digital Civil Society Lab at Stanford University's Center on Philanthropy & Civil Society, about her new book How We Give Now: A Philanthropic Guide for the Rest of Us. In a fascinating and wide-ranging conversation, Rhodri and Lucy discuss many issues relating to themes in the book, including:
The expanding "Giving Space"
What will the expansion of the “giving space” and the proliferation of ways of “doing good” (e.g. crowdfunding, social investment, ethical consumerism, etc) mean for traditional philanthropic giving? Does this matter?
Has most of the “democratization” of giving in recent years actually being “commoditization”? What would genuine democratization of the giving space look like?
Platforms and online giving
What dangers are there in assuming that platforms are neutral public spaces? Will these problems be exacerbated by the shift to new forms of giving?
Data donation
What does data donation look like in practice?
Is there something fundamentally different about a form of giving in which the donor retains the asset they have donated?
Mutual Aid & Movements
Does the enthusiasm for mutual aid networks, digital movements etc demonstrate an unmet appetite for greater participation? Have traditional nonprofits fallen into the trap of being too transactional and seeing those who give simply as sources of money rather than potential partners in achieving social change?
Political giving:
In the context of new online digital social movements, and renewed appreciation by political parties of the importance of grassroots organizing, does the distinction between “philanthropic” giving and “political” giving make sense any longer?
Do we need to maintain a distinction between political giving and charitable giving, because the former needs to be wholly transparent while the latter should allow for anonymity?
Policy:
When we talk about recognizing other types of giving, are there policy implications?
To what extent is it the role of government to try to shape our culture of giving? Should it take an active role, or should it merely ensure minimum standards and safeguards and otherwise stay out of the way?
Elite philanthropy & mass giving
There seems to be a real interest among elite donors/institutional funders right now in supporting the growth of everyday giving, social movements etc. Why is this?
Can mass giving movements help to counter concerns about the potentially anti-democratic impact of big money philanthropy?
What opportunities (and potential challenges) does the involvement of big money philanthropy in developing cultures of mass giving present?
In this very much feature length (!) episode we explore the philosophy of philanthropy. We take a look at some of the key philosophical questions about giving that have been tackled by great thinkers through the ages, and ask how they can inform our thinking about philanthropy today. Including:
-Is altruism or egoism the basis of human nature?
-What is the nature of property?
-Why should we give?
-Is giving a choice or a duty?
-How does charity relate to justice?
-What should we give to?
-How should we give?
-Are perpetual endowments justifiable?
-What is the role of philanthropy in a democracy?
-Why has Effective Altruism become so influential, and should we be concerned?
-Do we need to wider philosophical perspectives on philanthropy?
In this episode I talk to Dan Corry, Chief Executive of NPC - a UK think tank and consultancy for the social sector. We discuss NPC's "Rethink, Rebuild" project, and how the pandemic might reshape philanthropy and civil society. Including:
What does it mean to take a systems approach whens setting strategy, and why is it important?
To what extent might erode individual organisational identity over time? Is that a problem, or a good thing?
Is there too much competition and not enough collaboration in the charity sector? Why is this?
Why are existing approaches to collaboration not always good at ensuring equity and fairness?
What kind of challenges are there for traditional grantmakers when it comes to bringing communities and people with lived experience into decision making processes?
Are there signs that funders are changing their behaviour during the current crisis? (Moving to unrestricted funding, trust-based grantmaking etc.) Is this likely to lead to longer-term changes?
How can funders strike the right balance between taking a trust-based approach and not placing unnecessary reporting burdens on grantees, and having sufficient measurement to ensure they still know their funding is working?
What role can data play in making philanthropy and grantmaking more effective and equitable?
How do we enable and incentivise data sharing approaches?
What will be required to convince local and central govt, and public sector bodies, of the merits of sharing their data with charities?
Is too much of the emphasis in the current UK government “Levelling Up” agenda on physical infrastructure?
How do we get government to think of social infrastructure alongside physical infrastructure?
Do we need to “level up” the charity sector itself, in order to overcome geographic imbalances in where there is provision and resources?
What is the role of government when it comes to philanthropy & civil society? E.g. To acknowledge it, to craft a narrative about the role it plays, to support it actively, to hold it to account etc?
How can we get better understanding and clearer narratives about philanthropy/civil society in the minds of policymakers?
Are there any practical barriers that are currently limiting the ability of civil society to “have a seat at the table” when it comes to policy discussions? What could we do to overcome these?
In this episode Rhod talks to Ben Soskis, a Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institute's Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy and co-Editor of the website HistPhil.org, about the big issues and themes in US philanthropy over the last few years and where things might go in the future. Including:
How has the pandemic shifted perceptions of philanthropy in the US over the short term? Are those perceptions likely to get better or worse over the longer-term, post pandemic?
Mackenzie Scott: What are the most interesting/encouraging things about her emergence as a major philanthropist? What are the main questions that still need answering? Has she had an impact on the general public perception of philanthropy?
Elon Musk: Is he the world's first "Troll Philanthropist"? What does his emergence as a major giver mean for the norms of philanthropic discourse?
Bill Gates: Has any of the controversy over the Gates Foundation’s involvement in vaccine development had an effect on the overall narrative about philanthropy in the US?
Have the norms around time horizons in philanthropy shifted as a result of the pandemic? i.e. will we see more calls for foundations to spend down their endowments?
Why are a growing number of elite donors/institutional funders interested in supporting the growth of everyday giving? What opportunities (and potential challenges) does the involvement of big money philanthropy in developing cultures of mass giving present?
Why are we seeing more emphasis on direct cash giving in recent years? Is the growth primarily driven by individual P2P giving, or by organisations employing direct giving models? If the latter, is this primarily driven by a desire to democratise/shift power or by a belief that it delivers better results in terms of outcomes?
In this episode we take a look at some of the key issues and trends affecting philanthropy and civil society right now and offer some thoughts on what to watch out for over the coming year. Including:
Ongoing pandemic uncertainty/"normalisation" rather than an ending
Will changes in norms re remote/flexible working become established? What will this mean for civil society in terms of both opportunities and challenges?
Individual burnout and organisational closure
The climate crisis: do all CSOs/funders need to be doing more?
Racial justice: will the focus continue, or is there a danger of it being seen as a "moment" that has passed?
Political hostility towards civil society around the globe- further closing of civil society space, new restrictions on foreign funding etc?
Is there a decline in giving? Are we increasingly reliant on a smaller pool of donors?
Are people giving in new ways that we are failing to count? Does this matter?
Will we see more elite philanthropy supporting efforts to develop everyday giving?
Impact measurement scepticism
Core cost funding, trust-based philanthropy
Debate over timeframes (immediacy vs long-term view)
Scrutiny of sources of wealth.
Continuing criticism of philanthropy, pushback on criticism; more division within philanthropy
The "platformisation" of giving?
New cybersecurity threats
AI implications: productivity tools, new ways of giving, new challeges to address, need for civil society to have a voice in debate over AI development.
Cryptocurrency & blockchain: Rise of cryptophilanthropy (who are crypto-donors, what makes them tick?), can CSOs harness the NFT market (or is it a dangerous bubble?)
The Metaverse: what opportunities & challenges might it bring for CSOs?
In this episode Rhod talks to Edgar Villanueva, author of "Decolonizing Wealth: Indigenous Wisdom to Heal Divides and Restore Balance" about why many of our current models of philanthropy reflect structures and approaches that disempower and disadvantage minoritised communities and how things need to change to address this problematic legacy. Including:
Why is it important that philanthropy acknowledges and addresses the fact that it almost always reflects structures and systems that contain racial bias and that have historically disadvantaged marginalised communities? What do those working in philanthropy need to do in practice? And are there signs of the kinds of change that is needed taking place?
Is racial injustice such a big/cross-cutting issue that it should not be seen as a cause area, but rather as something that is the responsibility of ALL philanthropic funders and nonprofits?
In trying to convince philanthropic funders of the need to acknowledge issues of racial justice, is it better to make a moral case (i.e. that they should do it because it is “the right thing to do”) or a practical one (i.e. that it will make them more effective as grantmakers to reflect and share power with the people and communities they are trying to support)?
Should we be optimistic that the current recognition of the need to apply a racial justice lens across philanthropy will be maintained?
What does it mean to say that “money can be medicine”? What do philanthropists and funders need to do to ensure their money heals rather than harms?
How can foundations use all of their assets (including investments, property etc) to work towards decolonization?
What is the importance of story as medicine?
How can we ensure that decision making within traditional forms of philanthropy is shifted towards the people and communities who would have been seen as the traditional ‘beneficiaries’? (E.g. through participatory means?)
Does it present a challenge to decolonizing philanthropy if those who agree with your arguments feel defensive about their implications? How do we overcome this challenge?
A lot of the recent focus when it comes to addressing racial justice issues has been less on traditional nonprofits, and more on things like mutual aid networks and networked social movements. Is part of the enthusiasm for these new forms of giving down to frustration with traditional nonprofit approaches, which are often perceived not to have changed quickly enough?
Why is the mainstream nonprofit world not good at learning from other giving cultures (does it reflect an exceptionalist mindset)? And how can we get better?
The book argues for a pragmatic approach to improving philanthropy (i.e. working with existing structures to improve them),rather than “burning everything to the ground” as some more radical voices argue we should. Why is that the case? Is it sometimes difficult to maintain pragmatism?
In this episode, Rhod talks to author and historian Maribel Morey about her new book White Philanthropy: Carnegie Corporation's 'An American Dilemma' and the Making of a White World Order. Including:
What is "An American Dilemma" and what role has it played in the history of thinking about race in the US?
What are some of the contemporary and subsequent critiques of the report?
Why do we need to re-evaluate the role of the Carnegie Corporation in shaping the development and eventual narrative of "An American Dilemma"?
How does the origin of "An American Dilemma" fit into the wider global context of imperialism at the time?
Is the role of the people who administer philanthropic wealth (the “philanthropoids”) too often underappreciated in historical study?
Were Carnegie Corporation figures like Frederick Keppel and James Betram genuinely trying to interpret Andrew Carnegie’s wishes as they understood them, or were they using their roles as amanuenses to impose their own views?
Can the Carnegie Corporation’s support for “An American Dilemma” be interpreted as a highly successful example of “upstream philanthropy” i.e. funding research or analysis that sets the parameters for public debate and policy formation?
Can we learn lessons today about how philanthropy can influence long-term change?
What can the example of Carnegie Corporation and "An American Dilemma" tell us about current debates over the tension between incrementalism and radicalism in philanthropy?
Would it have been better in the long run if progressive foundations that pursued assimilationist approaches or which viewed racial equality as a process that involved Black Americans increasingly conforming to White norms had simply stayed away from race as an issue altogether?
How widespread and acceptable among philanthropists and foundations of the first half of the C20th was the view that eugenics and forced population control were part of the solution to the “race problem”?
Does there need to be more of a reckoning with this history?
What value can a historical perspective can bring to philanthropists, funders and non-profit professionals?
Are there limits to the utility of historical comparison in understanding the present?
Améliorez votre compréhension de Philanthropisms avec My Podcast Data
Chez My Podcast Data, nous nous efforçons de fournir des analyses approfondies et basées sur des données tangibles. Que vous soyez auditeur passionné, créateur de podcast ou un annonceur, les statistiques et analyses détaillées que nous proposons peuvent vous aider à mieux comprendre les performances et les tendances de Philanthropisms. De la fréquence des épisodes aux liens partagés en passant par la santé des flux RSS, notre objectif est de vous fournir les connaissances dont vous avez besoin pour vous tenir à jour. Explorez plus d'émissions et découvrez les données qui font avancer l'industrie du podcast.
