One of the barriers to philanthropic giving is becoming overwhelmed. Once you decide to give, then there are so many options that paralysis is a really common next stage. That is why Philanthropy Advisors like me play a key role in unlocking giving through helping our clients to narrow in on one (or a few) areas. Depending on the interests of those involved and the number of family members and generations, this is not an easy process. It is worth taking the time to do this well as the benefits are many:

It makes philanthropy manageable and enables them to get started;
They learn about an issue and develop their understanding and connections over time;
It can focus their resources and efforts to support change in one field rather than be stretched across many issues;
Similarly, it supports the ability to say ‘no’ and prevents becoming emotionally stretched;
For those who give publicly, it signals the areas of interest to potential partners and collaborations.

Conversely, problems can occur where focus is too tightly held. This can be seen with the so-called ‘dead hand of the donor’ where future generations struggle to engage with or even to implement cause areas set by their ancestors that are no longer relevant to today’s issues. This means that when thinking about philanthropy with a succession lens, flexibility needs to be built in. And even on new strategies, maintaining a proportion of ‘discretionary’ funds is a helpful tool to enable wealthy donors and families to respond to obligations and disasters whilst still maintaining their key focus.

But having any focus has critics. In her book ‘A New Era of Philanthropy’ (well worth a read), Dimple Abichandani writes that having narrowly crafted funding priorities creates barriers to those working in contexts that cut across issues and regions. The risk is that “complex, intersectional, and impactful work will fall outside the narrow category.” The suggestion here is the focussing should be left to the community receiving funds, not the philanthropic donors. (But I would still argue that choosing a community to listen to and involve still requires a focus).

So, as with many other situations in philanthropy, a balance needs to be struck. In this case between these two truths:

That social and environmental change does not fit into neat boxes.
That a focus needs to be selected – whether a place, issue, or community or all three - in order to move from overwhelm to action and impact.

Therefore yes, there is a need to appreciate the messy reality and not narrow the focus so much that it distorts practice and misses opportunities for change. However, some narrowing needs to happen in order to move forward. Because when you cannot fund everything, you need to make some choices to identify partners and resource their work.

In all of this it helps to remember that others are also giving to other or related causes. The problem of how to narrow a focus becomes harder if we hold the mindset that philanthropists are acting alone and resources are scarce. Pooling efforts with others is important, because creating change is only possible through a collaborative effort.