Philanthropy Advisors are a help not a hindrance

Philanthropy Advisors have been labelled a potential threat to fundraisers and charities. I have a different take on our role: we provide a valuable service to wealthy donors. Our motivation is to unlock generosity in support of social and environmental change. Our key role is to guide our clients through the many choices and challenges that philanthropy brings in order to move their good intentions into action. There is a growing demand for this specialist support with over 80% of High-Net-Worth-Individuals wanting more advice from professionals about their philanthropic aims and objectives. Research finds that both those taking advice and those with a giving plan (something most Philanthropy Advisors help create) give more. So why are we seen as a challenge?

The concern was raised recently by Ian MacQuillin in Third Sector, in ‘Philanthropy advisers pose a serious challenge for fundraisers’. His piece is linked to ‘Death by a Thousand Cuts’ a report from the fundraising think tank Rogare and Kingston University London published this summer. That report sets out all the other actors who are encroaching on the space traditionally held by charities and fundraisers. For example, giving directly through microloans and crowdfunding, point of sale donations, workplace giving, and Philanthropy Advisors.

A separate paper from Rogare, ‘Take My Advice … How philanthropy advisors are reshaping the stewardship of donors’ giving relationships’,  focuses on philanthropic advisors, identifying seven challenges for fundraisers including competition for donor attention. It describes philanthropic advisors as ‘disruptive’, “inserting themselves as the central locus of decision-making, relationship management and impact evaluation.” The paper is right to highlight the increased complexity within the philanthropy ecosystem, which is one of the reasons that wealthy donors benefit from support. It is also helpful that it brings attention to the growth of philanthropy advising and what it means for fundraisers.

My plea is that, when working out how best to work with Philanthropy Advisors, fundraisers view us not as a challenge or a competitor but as allies. Three aspects of our work explain why:

• Our work before an introduction can help a potential donor become a well-informed partner: clear about their role and approach, ready to listen, and able to ask pertinent questions. Philanthropy Advisors do far more than connect donors to charitable organisations. Behind the scenes, we facilitate conversations - often across generations - about the purpose of wealth, ideas of enough, legacy, and purpose. We help donors understand how the third sector works, good practice in grant-making, and different approaches to philanthropy, and connect them with resources and peers. That preparation matters to fundraisers because it helps donors arrive ready to build a successful partnership.

• When a Philanthropy Advisor introduces a donor to an organisation, we bring a prospect with a clear interest in its work. By explaining the donor’s interests and concerns, we help the fundraiser begin building the relationship. Where we can get out of the way, we do. However, where a donor is giving anonymously, we may provide the only route for the organisation to connect with them. We also have time that busy donors often don’t have to follow up questions, liaise with other advisors, and steward things along so that donations happen.

• Our contribution also extends beyond direct client work. Many Philanthropy Advisors work to increase understanding of philanthropy across the wealth and financial industries. When wealth managers, investment managers, estate planners, and others supporting wealthy families raise the topic of giving and refer clients to specialist help, more funds become available to charities. Promoting and encouraging philanthropy is another way we support the work of fundraisers.

Rather than frame Philanthropy Advisors as displacing fundraisers, we should be seen as valuable partners in the philanthropy ecosystem. After all, both Philanthropy Advisors and fundraisers are working to the same shared goal: bringing resources to vital work that makes a real difference.

Being Narrow – but not narrowminded

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:

1. That social and environmental change does not fit into neat boxes.

2. 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.

Reflections on UK Government’s ‘Our place to give’

On the 13th April the UK government launched their new philanthropy strategy: Our place to give: a plan for growing place-based philanthropy. This sets out six actions under three pillars:

Pillar one: Connecting philanthropy with place

Pillar two: Establishing better philanthropic partnerships

Pillar 3: Unlocking further philanthropic investment

It is good to have the government taking philanthropy seriously in this way and recognising the value of private giving in helping communities to thrive. The document showcases a range of examples of philanthropy in action and emphasises the need for collaboration. The emphasis on place feels right, as this focus can make philanthropy, which is often full of an overwhelming array of choices, feel manageable. Place-based giving puts listening to local  communities at its heart, increasing the likelihood of effective interventions.

From a personal point of view, as co-founder of Bath Women’s Fund, I am proud to see our Giving Circle included as an example of place-based giving. The main emphasis of the plan is on wealthy philanthropists so we are the one example waving the flag for ‘everyday’ philanthropists giving at modest monthly levels. Giving Circles such as ours are a great way of spreading a culture of giving.

As someone trying to build the Philanthropy Advice profession, I was also pleased to see the inclusion of Action 5: ‘Strengthening the provision of philanthropic advice in the financial services sector’ featured in the government’s plan as a key way to unlock philanthropy. There has been a lot of good work done by Cath Dovey of NPC, Pro Bono Economics, Onward Philanthropy and others advocating for this and there is a very clear business case, for example, showing that younger wealthy people will seek out financial advisors who offer philanthropy advice. Financial service professionals are well placed, but not yet equipped, to talk about philanthropy with their clients. Research shows they lack the incentives, confidence and knowledge to do this.

This is where the government has missed a trick by not explicitly mentioning Philanthropy Advisors in their plan. As an emerging profession, a namecheck would have been welcome. We have a very important part to play - we are the group of professionals whose primary motivation is to unlock private funds for good and have the expertise to guide wealthy individuals. We are skilled intermediaries who act as a bridge between wealthy donors and local charities and communities and advocate for good practice in funding. The government could make use of the excellent Philanthropy Advisors already operating in the UK and encourage what I call a ‘raise and refer’ approach to philanthropy. In my vision this is where financial services advisors are equipped to confidently raise the topic of philanthropy with their clients and then refer to specialist Philanthropy Advisors. Government funding could strengthen the system by supporting the development of shared standards, a code of conduct, and an accessible directory of Philanthropy Advisors.

So while there is much to like in this government plan, not championing Philanthropy Advisors is a missed opportunity. My plea is to include Philanthropy Advisors in the proposed working group and to seriously consider the adoption of a ‘raise and refer’ approach.

Giving to individuals: From Alms to UBI

Philanthropy discussions can focus on its role as risk capital or maximising its impact. But in these strategic conversations it is easy to lose sight of the fact that at its heart philanthropy is about individuals helping other individuals. We talk about ‘giving to charity’, but donations (especially core and unrestricted) pay staff or support volunteers who are the ones that put in the hours to ensure impact is delivered.

Giving money to help others has a long history. Mutual aid is part of many communities across the world, such as Chit Funds in India and Susu in the Caribbean. Giving ‘alms to the poor’ (an old term for giving charity), is core to the practice of many faiths such as Zakat for Muslims or tithing in Christianity.  One of my early career roles was working at an advice centre where I would apply to charitable trusts for small grants to help individuals in crisis. These grants helped with all manner of things from clearing debts to providing school uniforms. But this isn’t the only way to give money to individuals.

Help through hard times

Firstly, the same approach I used in that previous role is still out there. Many organisations directly help individuals with essential costs. In the UK, the charity Turn 2 Us provides details of all the state benefits and grants available to those finding it hard to make ends meet. The Directory of Social Change (DSC) publishes The Guide To Grants for Individuals in Need. This is the same one I turned to in my advice centre role, but it is now in its 19th edition. It includes 1,800 grant-making charities giving almost £376 million in funds. In it you will find the benevolent funds that help musicians, teachers, ex-miners or those working with leather as well as small trusts set up to help people who live in their neighbourhood. Larger trusts and foundations can also help, such as Buttle UK which provides funding packages for vulnerable children and works with BBC Children in Need to provide emergency essentials like beds, washing machines and clothes. Community Foundations often also help individuals such as their Surviving Winter programme that helps older people to heat their homes.

Help with personal and career development

Other funding for individuals might focus on their development and career progression. The Scholarship Hub details the scholarships, bursaries and educational grants available for students. Some are quite niche such as Heritage Crafts which provides training bursaries to those wanting to develop their skills in shoemaking, stained glass conservation or saddlery. Others focus on a particular group of people or a place such as Helena Kennedy Foundation which provides financial support to enable students who face financial difficulties to progress to higher education. Or the Portal Trust which awards grants to young people from a low income or disadvantaged background who live in inner London.

Support for changemakers

Another way to help individuals is to back people with ambitions to do good things: the leaders, social entrepreneurs and change-makers. Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors1 classify funders who take this approach as ‘Talent Agencies’ who seek out change agents who they identify because of their potential. Examples include Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s Ideas and Pioneers Fund [not currently open] which gave grants to individuals to explore their ideas for social change. For those funders looking to develop programmes for individuals, then the Co-operative Foundation produced a good report when they were scoping their Young Changemakers Fund, which gave grants to individual activists, campaigners, disrupters, co-operators, and social entrepreneurs. The report has details of 20 UK funding initiatives with different aims, models and approaches to risk.

Giving directly

Rather than applying to the various schemes, another option for individuals needing help is to appeal directly to others by using crowdfunding platforms like GoFundMe, JustGiving, Crowdfunder. These platforms include individuals asking for help with medical treatment, vet bills, educational trips and funeral costs. They have grown – the latest UK Giving report showed over £682 m of the total £14 bn donated by the public in 2025 was through crowdfunding. These methods are particularly popular with millennials and Gen Z because of their directness and because they are driven by social media.

Universal Basic Income (UBI)

Perhaps the ultimate in giving directly to individuals is UBI. This is the idea that every citizen, regardless of need or situation, receives a flat rate payment to cover their basic needs. I say UBI is an idea because no country has yet adopted it in full because it is expensive. Critics say it will reduce the incentive to work and some strongly resist the idea of people getting something for nothing. Advocates argue UBI reduces poverty, inequality and improves people’s wellbeing. Supporting individuals at this scale is generally for governments – the Irish government has brought in a scheme for arts workers, announcing in Autumn 2025 that this will be permanent following a successful pilot which showed a rise in productivity. The role for private donations is in funding pilots, growing the movement, and supporting the research such as backing the UBI Labs Network, 40 citizen-led groups (the majority in the UK) exploring and advocating for UBI.

The role of philanthropists

Philanthropists looking to help individuals can add resources to any of these existing approaches:

• Funding bursaries, investing in change-makers or activists, and giving through crowdfunding platforms.

• Supporting charities offering small grants, cash or microloans.

• Philanthropists (especially if interested in system change) could back UBI schemes.

We must also remember that the reasons people need direct financial help are many and varied. As well as giving money that ends up in the hands of individuals, it is also important for philanthropists to support charities that work to tackle the root causes that contribute to inequality and poverty.

1 https://www.rockpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Operating-Archetypes-Philanthropys-New-Analytical-Tool-for-Strategic-Clarity-2.pdf

For more on UBI see: https://www.jrf.org.uk/social-security/is-universal-basic-income-a-good-idea

The value of human philanthropy advisors

The predictions for philanthropy in 2026 are starting to arrive in my inbox. Whilst I have not read them all yet, it will not surprise you to know that amongst the trends (more place-based giving, a greater role for Asia, the growth in community-led movements) AI is guaranteed a mention. There are positive claims for its improving efficiency and coming up with new solutions for the climate crisis. And fears for the impact of its energy demands and the loss of jobs. AI looks set to reshape every aspect of society including how we think and connect with each other.

In philanthropy advising it is becoming a useful tool for gathering information and identifying opportunities. It’s current flaws: making things up and relying on out-of-date research are annoying, but also reassuring as a reminder that there is still a place for knowledgeable humans. As AI tools improve, what they bring into question is the value of humans in systems, decisions, and roles. Every year, I ask myself and my students if human philanthropy advisors are safe. Do we still have a role, do we continue to add value, do I still have a job?

As we go into 2026, I have 3 main reasons why I think human philanthropy advisors are safe for another year –

1.     We are still in demand.

McKinsey’s Affluent and High-Net-Worth Consumer Survey of US investors in 20241 found that clients are increasingly willing to pay a premium for human advice. This was not exclusive to philanthropy, but I do think human advice is what is being sought for deeper conversations about purpose, what wealth is for, how much to leave your children, and how much money is enough.

2.     Because our role involves tricky human skills.

Philanthropy advisors need to be able to listen carefully, guide conversations and facilitate meetings. It is not an easy task to work with multi-generational families, who have different personalities and views, and help them make good decisions. It is harder still to manage conflicts that can arise in philanthropy, as elsewhere. Philanthropy advisors also need qualities such as integrity and bravery in asking difficult questions. Our work requires good judgment when balancing and navigating a whole host of inter-related issues such as values, interests, parenting, faith, fears, and ideas around impact.

3.     We don’t just do what we are asked.

We explain to clients that we will play devil’s advocate, and will bring challenge, questions, alternative viewpoints, and evidence to their thinking. We continue to think deeply about our clients and their problems as we move through the world. Insights strike when we overhear a conversation, go for a walk, or listen to music. What truly sets us apart from AI is that we care.

Human philanthropy advisors are not efficient machines and that is our very strength. We are individuals with values, knowledge, and experience that wrestle with the tricky challenge of how best to do good in the world. AI can help us, but so too can our humanity.

1 see: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-looming-advisor-shortage-in-us-wealth-management

What history tells us about giving

Philanthropy has a long history and has been the subject of many philosophers’ thinking. One famous quote comes from Aristotle: "To give away money is an easy matter and in any man's power. But to decide to whom to give it, and how large, and when, and for what purpose and how, is neither in every man's power nor an easy matter." I have recently come across another philosopher from the medieval ages, Maimonides, who lived between 1138 to 1204. They gifted us with the ladder of charity which sets out 8 levels of giving:

8           grudgingly

7           cheerfully but less than you can afford

6           when asked

5           without being asked

4           where the recipient knows the giver

3           where the giver knows the recipient

2           where giver and recipient are unknown to each other

1           helping someone to become self-sufficient

What does this tell us today?

First, the idea that there is a hierarchy in how we view different types of giving still exists. Current debates include that unrestricted giving is better than restricted. Maimonides is definite about their ordering, but in some cases I would argue that ‘it depends’. For example, giving without being asked (number 5) could be viewed positively where a proactive donor provides funding without the need for an application form. However, without some contact and conversation, this approach runs the risk of the giver providing what they think is needed rather than what the recipient actually wants.

Secondly, what here is new? For Maimonides the highest form of charity was to offer someone a gift that sustained them before they needed help, perhaps by providing them with a loan or finding them a job. Today’s philanthropic loans, a focus on prevention, and addressing root causes rather than providing direct relief turn out not to be modern thinking after all.

Third, the different levels show that the intention of the giver is important regardless of the nature and size of the gift. The levels seem to take the perspective of the giver and I wonder if the order would change if seen through the lens of the recipient. Would today’s recipients prefer a large sum giving grudgingly than a small amount given cheerfully? Perhaps not. Feedback from fundraisers suggest that someone supporting their work is a real boost to morale alongside the money. And gifts coming with an agenda can be less well received. Some non-profits have policies for handling gifts that could be ‘tainted’ and affect their reputation.

Fourth, the ladder suggests that giving is diminished by recognition, with anonymous giving in second place in the hierarchy. Anonymous giving does have a place where donors need privacy for good reason. (I work with donors who remain anonymous). However, there are specific considerations with this type of giving. Recipients often want to thank a donor and inform them about their work. This is in part to build a relationship in the hope of further gifts, but also out of the wish to show appreciation and build connection with someone who cares about what they do. Being public with their giving can act as a role model for others and help build philanthropy as a social norm. I would add a new level where the giver goes public, not for their own reward but to draw attention to an issue and encourage others to give. And where this is done in partnership with the recipient.

Lastly, the ladder highlights the connection or distance between giver and recipient. This connection with a cause or a nonprofit is an important motivator to give, for example, when someone has first-hand experience or lost a loved one to a particular health issue.  It is one of the drivers for giving locally where the difference is understood or seen. Others argue that it is important to give beyond personal experience and extend support to those we do not know, which would align with Maimonides ranking this up at second place.

So, all in all, this medieval hierarchy for how people give is still familiar and recognisable. Today, we could reframe it using a power or equity lens, perhaps the lowest rung being ‘giving in order to obtain personal advantage’ via ‘giving in partnership’ to ‘ceding decision-making to those most affected’. We could of course get rid of the idea of different types of giving being better altogether, but reflecting on this historical view against today’s practices has been interesting and I invite you to do the same.

Image credit: Photo by Anne Nygård on Unsplash

How to be a philanthropist when you have no time

Being wealthy does not always mean you are rich in time. Some of my philanthropist clients are in a position to give significant time to their philanthropy and it can even become like a full-time job.  But other clients find themselves time poor – having too many things to do and not enough time to do them in. It is not usually a case of lacking time for basics like sleep and exercise, nor the time committed to essentials like parenting or running a business. What gets squeezed out is the discretionary time where you get to pursue your chosen passion and interests. This can mean that there is a desire and intention to be philanthropic but not the time to make this happen. And because philanthropy is a voluntary act it can easily fall to the bottom of the ‘to do’ list.

In my advising practice I make sure I ask my clients about the time they have available for their philanthropy early on in the process. This is because it is a significant parameter toward the success of any giving plan. Where time pressure is a constraint, it is still possible to be philanthropic. Here are four ways to be a philanthropist when you have very little time:

1.     Not surprisingly my first suggestion is to engage a Philanthropy Advisor. Yes, you will need some time to select the right person and to have initial conversations to determine the best way ahead. After this initial investment, a good advisor can take on the implementation of your philanthropy: conducting research, identifying opportunities, brokering relationships, attending events, monitoring the progress of funded partners.

2.     Embed your philanthropy in the tasks you already make time for. Make sure it is part of your conversations about managing your wealth or planning your estate. Make sure you talk about it when meeting with your tax advisor or family office. Make it a part of family meetings – whether a formal annual review or a conversation over breakfast. That way it becomes a decision and action amongst others rather than a completely separate task.

3.     Do your philanthropy once – or at least until you have more time. So set up regular donations or payroll giving, so that once they are started they carry on without your input. You can also make the decision just once as to who to make a bequest to in your will. Or make one big donation – what Philanthropy Advisor, Alex Johnston, calls “One and Done” where you give all your philanthropic resources in one gift.

4.     Give through others. There are a whole host of infrastructure organisations and intermediaries that can help you distribute your donations. You could give your funds to another philanthropist or grant-making organisation, or a Community Foundation, or a re-granter, or a collaborative.

 A Philanthropy Advisor can help with all these options. What is important is that you don’t let your lack of time get in the way of your desire to do good or delay the movement of available funds to help meet urgent needs and impactful opportunities.

More reading if you are interested in the ideas of time poverty and time affluence:

Giurge, L. M., Whillans, A. V., & West, C. (2020). Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(10), 993-1003. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0920-z

Photo credit: Ray Shrewsberry on Unsplash

How many Ts are there in philanthropy?

There is a framework in philanthropy called the 4 Ts that is useful when helping clients explore their philanthropic ideas and shape their giving plans. It prompts discussions about what clients can give besides money. The 4 Ts are:

Treasure – the assets you give

Time – the time you bring to your philanthropy

Talent – the skills and expertise you add

Ties – the contacts and connections you have that might help those you support

To give two examples: thinking about using their ties can encourage a philanthropist to consider the value of going public with their giving, or at least sharing it with friends, instead of staying anonymous. Thinking about the time they have available for their philanthropy can aid decisions about their level of engagement. For example, someone with lots of time to dedicate to their philanthropy may think of this as a second or third career, whereas someone with limited time may be better suited to joining a collaborative endeavour.

It is not clear where or when this framework originated but since its creation the 4 Ts model has expanded. A fifth T has been added: Testimonials, which is about adding your voice. A donor speaking up about an issue and going public with their donation can be a welcome resource for non-profits advocating for a cause or attracting new donors. And more recently, I learned of a sixth T: Truth. Here philanthropy is not just what you give but how you live your values. But how far might this framework stretch? Perhaps other Ts will be added such as Trust, to reflect the emphasis on trust-based philanthropic approaches, or Toil to capture the idea that you can have impactful work and careers, or Thought to emphasis the intention involved in philanthropic choices.

What I like about this 4 (or 5 or 6) Ts framework is that it reminds us that philanthropy is more than money. How you give is also important. However, I don’t think it helps to gather all types of ethical behaviour within ‘philanthropy’. Time on its own is volunteering; Testimony on its own is raising awareness; Truth on its own is a virtue. I also think that diluting Treasure in a growing list of other Ts is a problem. Treasure can be amplified by adding other resources including time, skills, expertise, contacts when this is appropriate. But for me, there is always money involved in philanthropy – it is giving private funds for public good. And right now, it is Treasure that non-profits need the most.

My suggestion is that the Ts framework becomes:

Treasure          +          

Time   

Talent

Ties

Testimonials

This Treasure+ framework gives money its importance whilst also reminding us that philanthropy goes beyond money. And it can keep expanding to include more Ts (Truth, Toil, Thought …) to cover everything else we can bring to enhance our philanthropy.

The pitfalls of using AI in funding applications

A lot is being said about AI in philanthropy. For those of you wanting insight on the current debates, then I recommend the new Routledge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Philanthropy – which is commendably free to access. For now, I want to share my experience of AI being used in funding applications from the position of someone reading and assessing them. The best description to capture this experience came from a fellow assessor who called it “soul destroying”.

Before I say anything more, I want to point out that:

1.     I have huge respect for fundraisers who have to complete countless application forms all looking for something slightly different in a system where the funders hold the power. Fundraisers deserve any tools they can get to make their task quicker and easier, especially in today’s difficult funding environment.

2.     I use AI tools myself, and think they have and will increasingly have a useful role in philanthropy. For example, creating the transcript from a conversation with a funded partner that removes the need for them to write a grant report.

The first difficulty in assessing an application written using AI is a practical one.  The tendency of tools like ChatGPT to come up with fairly bland points written in flowery language makes tough reading. The assessor has to concentrate hard to make sure they are uncovering the relevant information and not judging the presentation. It can be hard to find specific substance, for example, when considering a response like “by combining data, direct community input and expert insights we have a comprehensive evidence base that shows our service is urgently needed” and it is harder still when several applications include the same text. The very real risk is that good organisations will miss out on funding.

The second difficulty is more motivational. What enters your head is “what is the point of my trying so hard to assess something that nobody wrote?” Gaining efficiency means losing something important – the connection with someone who knows what the applicant actually does and why it matters. Some grant makers, with the good intentions of reducing bias and saving resources,  also use AI tools in the assessing process. So what happens when an assessment algorithm is used to assess an AI-generated application? Are we all (fund seekers and fund givers alike) freeing up time for better, richer conversations and other more important work? Or are we losing the importance of people expressing themselves and people listening in this process?

Whilst we all have to get our heads around the impact of AI on philanthropy, for now we still have the current system of application forms that usually need to be judged by a human at some point. Grantmakers therefore need to issue guidance on the use of AI – as some do, such as the London Community Foundation and Paul Hamlyn Foundation – to make it clear to applicants how this will be treated and the pitfalls to avoid. And fundraisers, by all means use AI for your first drafts, but please then translate it back into human and make sure it is a credible match to your work.

In praise of small: A shout-out for little philanthropy

Philanthropists in the public eye are often big personalities with large sums at their disposal, and they tell us about their big ideas for changing the world. There is a corresponding language of big-ness across the whole proposition: big bet philanthropy, scaling solutions, transforming systems, tackling the biggest challenges. These big visions for changing everything, of making a big difference are compelling, exciting and appealing.

Of course, there is a role for ambitious philanthropists and a need for transformational change. However, the big philanthropy mindset can favour the shiny, new, transformative initiative and overshadow less exciting needs such as a steady flow of funds to cover non-profits’ everyday operating costs. As Colburn Wilbur and Fred Setterberg write in their book, Giving With Confidence: A Guide To Savvy Philanthropy, “After many years of watching countless plans for instant transformation run out of fuel, I now embrace incrementalism as one of philanthropy’s orienting truths. Little changes for the good quickly. Unless we’re willing to support the steady work of our nonprofit partners, then not much will change period.”

It is important to remember that small and understated things also make a difference. After all, the majority of non-profits are small (over 80% of voluntary organisations in the UK have an annual income below £100,000) and they can be effective because of their smallness – which means they are accessible, known and trusted by the community. As well as small organisations, small donations from everyday philanthropists add up to large sums (in the UK 90% of donations are under £100). In this way, many small actions or contributions lead to significant change, demonstrating the important role for ‘evolution’ alongside ‘revolution’.

Focussing too much public profile on big philanthropy can be problematic in other ways. The vastness of the challenges facing our planet and society can stop people giving anything because they don’t know where to start. Feeling too small to make a difference is another barrier to people giving - what’s the point when my donation is just a drop in the ocean? The recent drop in everyday giving has in part been linked to people feeling that philanthropy is the role of the wealthy and not for them1. In short, if the profile of philanthropy is only about those with millions, it may keep others from acting.

But in contrast, feeling small can also be a good thing in philanthropy. Research into awe (see for example, this paper2) has found that witnessing nature’s wonder makes us feel small and increases our sense of inter-connectedness with others. It also affects people’s giving choices: in one study3 people induced to feel awe and a ‘small self’ donated proportionately more money to a global charity versus a local one. In this way, feeling small can ensure we think about our connections to others. It can guide us towards collective efforts, such as pooled funds, giving circles or funder collaboratives, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So, feeling small does not always create inertia, but can help us to value every little act, first step, or minor donation in the full knowledge that “great things are done by a series of small things brought together.” [Vincent Van Gogh]

1 Donor Participation Report - https://give.org/docs/default-source/donor-trust-library/2023-dtr-report_final(d)_06272023.pdf

2The Science of Awe: A white paper prepared for the John Templeton Foundation by Summer Allen of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley September 2018

3Seo M, Yang S, Laurent SM. No one is an island: Awe encourages global citizenship identification. Emotion. 2023 Apr;23(3):601-612. doi: 10.1037/emo0001160. Epub 2022 Sep 8. PMID: 36074621.