Send us a text

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? 

Related Links

• Wealth Shared website
• The final report and evaluation of the project
• Article about the project in the Big Issue
• 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.
• WPM article "In an ideal world, would there be no philanthropy?" (which was prompted by a discussion during one of the Wealth Shared sessions!)
• WPM article on radical philanthropy

Send us a text

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?

Related Links:

• The Fore
• Mary Rose's essay for the Law Family Commission on Civil Society
• Mary Rose being interviewed by Pioneers Post
• Mary Rose's blog post, "The Inefficiency Myth – debunking a damaging small charity stereotype"
• WPM guest article from Tom Le Fanu, "Why we (still) need to move beyond “overheads” as a way of judging charities"
• WPM article, "If You Were a Philanthropist, What Would You Do?"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Dr Ewan Kirk
• Philanthropisms podcast with Emma Beeston & Beth Breeze
• Philanthropisms podcast with Tris Lumley

Send us a text

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.

Related links:

• Pamala and Arjen's paper "Unrestricted funding and nonprofit capacities:
  Developing a conceptual model" and the Research Note version.
• Ali's paper (with Emily Lau), "Teaching student philanthropy—Possibilities for practice within the UK higher education sector" and the Research Note version.
• Rita's paper (with Roger Bennett & Rohini Vijaygopal) "Who Gives to Food Banks? A Study of Influences Affecting Donations to Food Banks by Individuals" and her paper (with Ian MacQuillin, Juniper Locilento & Neil Gallaiford) on "A typology of disintermediated giving and asking in the non-profit sector" and the Research Note version
• The previous editions of the Philanthropisms/ERNOP series: Number 1, number 2, and number 3.

Send us a text

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?)

Related Links:

• Mozilla Foundation
• Mozilla Fellowships
• Mozilla Foundation's article, "Trustworthy AI Funding Principles: Learnings and Opportunities from Mozilla Foundation’s 4+ Years of AI Grantmaking" 
• Philanthropisms podcast 2024 tech predictions
• Philanthropisms podcast episode on Philanthropy, Civil Society & AI
• Why Philanthropy Matters article, "What will 2024 bring for philanthropy and civil society?"
• WPM article, "OpenAI and the challenges of combining profit with purpose"
• Rhodri's Alliance article, "Artificial intelligence is coming for philanthropy"

Send us a text

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?

RELATED LINKS:

• Philanthropisms episodes on "philanthropy, civil society & AI" and "cryptophilanthropy: boom or bust?"
• WPM article on the chaos at OpenAI
• WPM article on MrBeast and Philanthropy
• Rhodri on The Bunker podcast discussing MrBeast
• WPM article on philanthropy, population debates and eugenics
• Rhodri's Alliance article "Artificial Intelligence is coming for philanthropy"
• WPM article on philanthropy and the metaverse

Send us a text

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?

Related Links:

• WPM article series on the nature and role of foundations
• WPM guest article from Natasha Friend on embracing emotion in philanthropy
• WPM article on Leah Hunt-Hendrix and "radical philanthropy"
• WPM article, "What is Philanthropy For?"
• Reflections on the Gates Foundation 2023 Greater Giving Summit
• Philanthropisms podcasts with Joshua Amponsem, Sara Lomelin and Elizabeth Barajas-Román

Send us a text

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? 

Related links:

• Insaan Group
• Farahnaz's recent piece for Alliance, "Rethinking governance in philanthropy: where is the forgotten stakeholder?"
• Farahnaz's article for CircleMENA, "Towards the next paradigm shift in philanthropy"
•  Farahnaz's 2022 Alliance piece, "Village to global village: Making sense of impact, ESG, and other ‘good’ ideas"
• Farahnaz's 2021 Alliance piece, "The nature of capital and other threats to impact"
• "Insaan – the Future of Philanthropy?" in Frank magazine
• Philanthropisms podcast episodes with Sadaf Shallwani, Cassie Robinson and Aaron Horvath
• WPM short guide to measuring impact.

Send us a text

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?

Related links

• Women's Funding Network
• WFN's "Time is Now" pledge
• Elizabeth's article for Chronicle of Philanthropy (with Saida Agostini-Bostic,  president of Funders for LGBTQ Issues), "The Onslaught of Anti-Trans Legislation Demands a Crisis Response From Philanthropy"
• Elizabeth's piece for Candid, "How gender justice funders are taking historic action on policy".
• Elizabeth's pieces for Alliance, "The equitable way forward: giving circles" and "This Black history month, give where it counts".
• Elizabeth's SSIR article, "Women’s Funds After the Pandemic"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Sara Lomelin, Philanthropy Together
• Philanthropisms podcast with L

Send us a text

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? 
  
  

Related Links:

• Philanthropy Together
• Hali Lee's article on "Cultures of Generosity and Philanthropy Within Communities of Color"
• Sara's talk at the 2022 TED conference, "Your invitation to disrupt philanthropy"
• Sara's 2021 article with Asha Curran in Ms magazine
• Sara's Alliance magazine article with Isis Krause on "The future of collective giving and what’s next for Philanthropy Together"
• Philanthropisms podcast with Mihaela Giurgiu
• WPM article on the 2023 Gates Foundation Greater Giving Summit
• WPM article on the language we use to talk about philanthropy

Send us a text

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?

Related links:

• Youth Climate Justice Fund website
• Read the Youth Climate Justice Study
• Joshua's recent Alliance magazine piece (with Nathan Méténier), "More power to youth: Doing climate philanthropy differently"
• Profile of YCJF in Inside Philanthropy (£) 
• Philanthropisms podcast with Lorena Gonzalez & Jes Olvera
• WPM short guides to core cost funding and impact measurement