Philanthropy and the starfish dilemma

The tale of the starfish is a story used to illustrate one of the choices philanthropists have to consider. It goes like this. Someone is walking on a beach and notices lots of starfish have been washed-up and are dying on the sand. They start picking them up and returning them to the sea. A second person comes along and tells them that there are so many starfish that their endeavours don’t matter. The first person picks up a starfish and says “it matters to this one”. This conveys the idea that every philanthropic act counts, no matter how small.

An alternative version is that the second person intervenes, not by helping rescue individual starfish, but (again having pointed out the first person’s approach is pointless) goes off to find the cause of the tragic incident to stop it at the root. On the one hand we have providing immediate assistance to those in need and on the other is addressing the root causes of a problem. I have heard this told with different gender stereotypes: the heart-led woman making a futile gesture whilst the clever man sees the big picture; or a sensible woman finding out what’s going on versus a man focused on a task.

I have three problems with using this starfish dilemma to talk about philanthropy:

First of all, it suggests that there is one right way that is the best thing to do – whether this is addressing symptoms or tackling underlying causes. In my view, there is space for many philanthropic approaches and this plurality is a strength. In all situations, taking one either/or approach is limited. Not only are there multiple ways to be philanthropic, there is also room to combine multiple approaches into one strategy.

Secondly, it reinforces the idea of a lone saviour. The individual is the focus – the pressure is on them to decide what to do for the best. Surely you could gather forces on the beach? You would bring a crowd to help the starfish and form an action group to raise awareness of the issue and lobby for change to prevent this happening again. Philanthropy is amplified by collaboration and collective action.

Lastly, the starfish are passive players in this scenario. This may work as an analogy for addressing environmental issues, but it does not apply where those being helped have agency. The human recipients of generosity are not just waiting to be helped. Like the starfish with their amazing ability to regenerate limbs, those needing help should not be underestimated. They can be consulted, involved and advocate for themselves.

Although the starfish tale is visually evocative and raises one interesting question, how might it be re-worked and used to illustrate the value of philanthropy’s plurality, collective action and with a central role for the starfish?

Image credit: Lucas Antics - https://lucasantics.bigcartel.com/

Costs are rising - how should philanthropists and funders respond?

The cost of living crisis is a double blow for charities who need to pay their own increased bills as well as responding to the increased needs of those affected in their communities. Add to this the fact that many are depleted from the experience of Covid which called upon them to use their reserves – both financial and people’s energy. In this time of anxiety and increased need, how should philanthropists and other funders respond?

The simple answer is with generosity. Generosity means a willingness to give help, especially more than is usual or expected. It is not grudging but an open-hearted act to go above and beyond what is needed.

There are many voices urging funders to respond to the current crisis by giving more. Suggestions include doubling whatever grant or donation they had in mind or raising the amounts given by 10% to keep up with inflation and prevent any grant losing its value. In the short-term, it means adding an uplift to any existing grants and in the longer-term, regularly reviewing the size of grant or donation on offer.

However, it is important to remember that these actions have consequences for donors. It is not always an easy decision to give more. Their income source is also likely to have been affected (for example, rising costs and wages in a business or lower returns on investments). Giving more now may not be possible or may reduce the amount they have to give in future. Giving more to one organisation inevitably means helping fewer overall. To manage this, fund-givers will need to say ‘no’ more often or narrow their focus, and this in turn will have a knock-on effect for those seeking funds. This is the very embodiment of the ‘scarcity mindset’ where the funds available are seen as a finite pie – one person having a larger slice means less pie for everyone else. What we really need is a collective generosity - not just philanthropists and funders giving more, but more people giving.

Generosity is not just about money. We also talk of generosity of spirit and heart – how we think about and approach others. Listening and learning can lead to deeper understanding of an issue and so better direct any available funds. Beyond money, there are other things that fund-givers can do to help. Adopting or continuing the practices of streamlining application processes and reducing reporting requirements ease the burden on stretched charity professionals. Providing unrestricted funds for as long as possible will help reduce worry and provide the flexibility for charities to allocate funds as needed in a changing situation. Working collaboratively can amplify resources and make it easier for charities to access funds from one source instead of many.

In whatever ways we all can, now is a time for generosity.

How much should you give to charity?

There are mixed messages about what is going on with charitable giving trends: the recent CAF annual giving survey showed that fewer people in the UK are giving whereas the Beacon Collaborative’s research into high-net-worth individuals has found a consistent upward trend in giving by the UK’s wealthy.  It is hard to know how this will settle as the cost of living crisis and falls in investment income take effect. Certainly the need is rising, with charities experiencing increased demand for support whilst they too are experiencing increased costs. Whatever the overall statistics say, the question remains: how much, as individuals, should we give to charity?

There are two concepts we can use to guide us.

First of all is the idea of social norms. If you Google ‘how much should I give …’ you get all sorts of advice on how much to give at a wedding or birthday or other social occasions. This shows our need to know how much others are giving so we don’t give too much or too little. Knowing how much others give also helps guide our charitable giving. Most faiths set out the amounts to give: 10% is the tithe in Christianity and Judaism; for Muslims, Zakat is 2.5%. Of course, there are differing ways of working this out including which assets count, how savings are treated and whether it is a percentage of your income before or after tax. For example, with Zakat it is 2.5% ‘of wealth that has been in one’s possession for a lunar year’ and is payable above a certain threshold (nisab). The amount due can be calculated using a Zakat calculator.  There are secular examples too: 1% business clubs or organisations like Giving What We Can which suggests giving 2-6% of your income. These all provide a useful steer for how much to give.

The second concept is the idea of enough. Charity is often discussed as what you do with any surplus you have. Your ‘spare’ change is the extra money you don’t need; but is that a monthly contribution after paying all your bills; or an amount left after paying for other things like holidays, family plans or retirement? There are mechanisms to determine what is enough to live on. One example is the minimum income calculator which sets out how much money people in the UK need based on the public’s view of what everyone should be able to afford – it is currently £325.26 per week for a single person living alone. For those with incomes above this, we don’t have one clear view of what counts as enough. Our culture values financial success and our media celebrates the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Yet at the same time there are calls to cap wages, introduce wealth taxes or prevent the purchase of second homes. If giving comes from what is seen as surplus then what counts as enough matters. Cath Dovey at Beacon Collaborative finds that the data suggests that it may take an income of over £250,000 to feel financially secure enough to make regular major gifts – probably way above any common view of enough. There are other tools like Compare Your Income from the OECD, How Rich Am I from Giving What We Can and the World Inequality Database which you can use to calculate how your income and wealth compares with others in your country and around the world.

Given that enough is so subjective, the simplicity of a percentage is very appealing. All the differing sources suggest somewhere between 1% and 10% is a good place to start if you can afford it. Even if everyone above the minimum income gave just 1% it would have a significant impact and would build a culture of giving as a social norm.

Beyond overwhelm: the role of the philanthropy advisor

Overwhelm, that sense of ‘bury or drown beneath a huge mass of something’ is not a good feeling. And yet, it is a common feeling in philanthropy – both for those facing burn-out working in the field who are inundated with requests for help; and those philanthropists who want to help but are overwhelmed by the number of options to do good and the enormity of the social and environmental issues.

Overwhelm is uncomfortable. It makes us feel hopeless and helpless. A natural reaction is avoidance. For philanthropists this can mean paralysis and inaction – it can be so hard to work out what to do for the best that it seems easier to do nothing. But that means money not being put to good use.

Philanthropy advisors, who like me, want to see more money channelled to those making a difference, have an important role to play in moving donors beyond overwhelm. Here’s how we can help:

1.     Reducing the options

The philanthropy advisor can work with a donor to find a focus. Asking questions that add parameters (for example a region, approach, theme) results in something more manageable. The advisor also brings available knowledge (from research and community voices) about where the gaps are and what is needed.

2.     Provide a reality check

A philanthropist seeking the one right choice in a sea of potential options is embarking on an impossible task. They would need to assess every cause and non-profit against multiple criteria in a constantly changing world to decide the best use of their funds. Donors are never working with perfect data and the advisor can let them know that this is the reality.

3.     Promote collaboration

The world’s problems are bigger if you think you have to tackle them on your own. Joining with others through giving circles, funder collaborations and pooled funds, brings reassurance to the donor that others decided to help in the same way. It also amplifies the difference they can make by joining resources with others. The advisor can introduce and help make connections with these collective efforts.

In summary, the only way to reduce the feeling of overwhelm is to move from doing nothing to doing something. By making the task manageable, reassuring the donor that there is no one right answer and reminding them that they are contributing to a collective effort to do good, the advisor encourages a donor to give.

The good thing about overwhelm is that it stems from caring. (Think of the opposite: being underwhelmed is to be un-moved). The advisor can build on this and help the philanthropist recognise that whilst they cannot do everything, giving something matters. Focusing on what they can do creates the energy to act and gets money into the world to do some good – suddenly drops in the ocean can become a tide that brings about sweeping change.

Debates on trust-based philanthropy

A recent article in Alliance magazine was titled “Is the trust-based philanthropy bubble about to burst?” and caught my attention because, although there has been much talk about the rise of trust-based philanthropy, in practice I don’t believe it is a very big bubble just yet.

Firstly, what is trust-based philanthropy?

It is an approach to giving which runs counter to the more traditional ‘funder knows best’ approach. Instead it recognises that those funded have insight and expertise to bring. It starts with the assumption that those closest to the issue are more likely to know what might work and where the priorities lie. The Trust-based Philanthropy Project sets out these basic principles:

1. give multi-year unrestricted funds

2. do the homework (instead of placing the burden on applicants to provide information)

3. simplify and streamline paperwork

4. be transparent and responsive

5. solicit and act on feedback

6. offer support beyond the cheque

These steps are about respecting a nonprofit’s knowledge and time, and working with them in a more equal partnership. It involves listening and building relationships.

What are the criticisms of trust-based philanthropy?

In his article “It’s time to ditch the mantra of trust-based philanthropy”, Foundation CEO Simon Summer’s raised three main criticisms. I have summarised them below and included some of the responses from those defending a trust-based approach:

1. Trust-based funders are free riding on the scrutiny of others.

Trust is not about being naïve. There are plenty of examples of funders feeling able to trust organisations because they have conducted scrutiny first. Trust should enable deeper and more open and honest conversations where the true situation can be revealed and explored.

2. Trust-based approaches are too US-centric.

The Trust-based Philanthropy Project is in the US but the practice is wider, including India and the UK. And although it appears a new thing, there is a long history of similar approaches such as mutual aid.

3. It promotes inequality as it favours a few, those we trust are those like us: “a few organisations become ‘donors’ darlings’ –  apparently more worthy of their trust and money than others.”

Traditional practice already leads to marginalised groups being under-served with less money going to women and girls, people experiencing racial injustice, LGBT+ and disabled communities.

Being aware of the power dynamic in philanthropy and a desire to shift this to mutual respect and understanding is actually an attempt to promote equity.

Will the bubble burst?

Trust-based philanthropy is certainly fashionable right now. It can be extended to more radical approaches such as participatory grantmaking where it is local people who decide how funds are allocated. However, its basic principles such as making applying for grants easier should not be that controversial. I for one hope the bubble keeps growing. Trust is a fundamental requirement for partnerships of mutual respect and that is exactly what we need more of if funders and the partners they fund are going to work together to address the social and environmental challenges we face.

My wish for 2022: Philanthropy embraces common ground

Instead of making a prediction for philanthropy in 2022, I’d like to make a wish: let 2022 be the year we celebrate the opportunities found in common ground. This gets forgotten in our increasingly polarised world where we divide ourselves into opposing camps. For example, a recent study found that in the UK the perception of division between the wealthier and the poor has increased from 49% in May 2020 to 67% in June 2021.

In philanthropy, choices are often positioned in a polarised way: moonshot philanthropy vs collective giving; data- driven vs trust-based approaches; local vs global; immediate relief vs tackling root causes. When advocating for a particular approach the arguments can come across as if there is only one right way to do philanthropy. For example, some champion the idea that the current needs are so great that philanthropists should give all their money away now. This is behind the increase in foundations spending down and the #HalfMyDAF campaign, which seek to mobilise more resources to address immediate social needs and climate change. On the other side are impassioned arguments for a long-term view, such as the Patient Philanthropy Project which is pooling resources for long-term gains so that funds are ready in the future “when an extraordinary time, need or opportunity arises”.

There is a lot to be said for understanding the pros and cons of each extreme and then ending up somewhere in between. And perhaps we are not as polarised as the media and social media would have us believe. The YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project found that people seemed divided when you take an identity lens. For example, 62% of those on the left considered themselves feminist while 70% of the right did not. However, when they focussed on issues, there was much more common ground. For example, the majority of those on both the left and the right take the view that promoting equality for women is a priority. The researchers concluded “that far from being poles apart, people tend to cluster somewhere in between”.

Somewhere in the middle will be the right approach for each philanthropist and foundation, given all the different factors that come to bear on their decision-making. How they give will depend on their values, the source and size of their money, their attitude to risk, who else they are accountable to, the field in which they work. What they support will depend on what the government is or isn’t doing in their chosen cause area and what will work best given the local needs and culture. These differences result in a variety of philanthropic approaches to be celebrated. There is room for everyone within each and every area, people who fund direct help, ambitious long-term change, capacity building, iconic buildings and those backing campaigns and social movements are all valuable.

There is some accepted good practice, like working in genuine partnership with those delivering the work and listening to communities, that all donors should follow. But let’s stop arguing about which philanthropic extreme is right and come together somewhere in the middle, where we might not be so different in what we want to achieve.

Festive philanthropy: 5 options for charitable gift giving

As regular readers know, I spend my time advising on different approaches to philanthropy and navigating my clients through all the intricate dilemmas that each big decision inevitably creates: to give locally or thematically? Whether or not to spend down an endowment? How narrow or broad a focus to take? As self-declared philanthro-nerd Rhodri Davies put it in a recent article “as is often the case with anything to do with philanthropy, once you start delving into the details you find that it is complicated”.

As we are heading into the festive season, it is a good time to step away from the complexity of philanthropy and the big strategic choices to focus on the simple act of giving. Counteracting the commercialism all around us at this time of year and diverting even a little of your festive budget towards a charitable cause is an easy way to do some good. Especially given the fact that, according to a survey by Finder, over 21 million British adults receive at least one unwanted gift each Christmas.

I am not such a Scrooge to suggest we shouldn’t give gifts. But if your friends, family, or colleagues agree, then pooling funds and giving together can bring you some cheer and avoids the issue of buying more stuff for people who might be lucky enough not to need anything. This is what I have done with a group of friends for some time. We used to all get each other a present, instead I now recommend a few of the charities I have been able to work with that year and they choose which one they would like to support. Then we give all the pooled money as a donation to that charity. If you have a similar situation, you can decide together like a one-off giving circle and I can’t think of a better topic of conversation over a glass of something than finding out what your friends and family care about.

Between you, if you are not sure who to donate to, then here are five great organisations that can help you:

1. Big Give’s Christmas Challenge – there are 250 charities for you to choose from and your donation is doubled if you give between midday on 30th November (which is #GivingTuesday) and midday on 2nd December.

https://www.givingtuesday.org.uk/double-donations-charity-big-gives-christmas-challenge/

2. Wishy – a new (founded in Bristol) platform which helps those who want a tangible ‘thing’ to buy with their money by listing what charities need as wishes such as £11 for 200 wooden forks for a homeless charity to provide when they are giving out hot meals; or £100 to buy tennis balls for a youth club.

https://wishy.org.uk/

3. KidsOut – targeted at getting companies to swap from Secret Santa to giving a present to a child living in a refuge.

https://www.kidsout.org.uk/how-companies-can-help/giving-tree/

4. Hartlepool Giving Tree – founded 10 years ago, this virtual giving tree now distributes presents to children and adults across the UK.

https://www.hartlepoolgivingtree.co.uk/

5. The Giving Tree idea has come over from the US and seems to be taking off in the UK. The other idea from the States is the Giving Vending Machine. London has one of these for the second year running (https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/vending-machines-for-charity-return-to-the-uk-6574). Not exactly the same, but in the same vein, is a large giving box in Bath shopping centre, where you can make contactless donations to four local charities (https://www.southgatebath.com/giving-box). Hopefully there is a similar scheme near you.

And of course, if you are buying gifts, don’t forget that 47% of charity income is earned. You can buy directly from many charities and the #PresentswithPurpose hashtag can direct you to other social enterprises and community businesses.

https://www.finder.com/uk/unwanted-gifts

https://philliteracy.medium.com/voluntary-woke-philanthropy-civil-society-the-culture-wars-195807e595f9

Philanthropists: them and us

I have recently spent a couple of days working with the next generation of a wealthy family. When I was recounting this to one of my own relatives (who shall remain nameless), their view was that I was supporting people who have got rich through extractive means and tax avoidance to feel better about themselves and look good to others by giving some money away. In a similar critical stance, according to various sector articles, I have been enabling ego-driven imperialists to undermine democracy and exert undue influence.

My experience has been different to these perspectives. I spent time with a group of delightful young people who are – voluntarily - embarking on their philanthropic journeys. They are thoughtful people who care about the planet and the people on it facing adversity and hardship. They understand the complexity of the issues they seek to tackle and are keen to work with others to try and address the root causes. They respect those working on the frontline and are keen to learn and help. They have – through good fortune – an opportunity to do good and a huge sense of responsibility.

How do we bridge this gap between critical narratives and my more positive experience?

In her new book, In Defence of Philanthropy (which I urge you to read), Beth Breeze sets out the very real danger that the negative discourse could put people off giving. What struck me most was the criticisms that ‘other’ rich donors. In a nutshell othering “involves attributing negative characteristics to people or groups that differentiate them from the perceived normative social group. It is an ‘us vs. them’ way of thinking about human connections and relationships. … Othering is a way of negating another person's individual humanity.” (see ref) It is usually thought of as a way of dehumanising marginalised groups such as migrants but it is also applied to philanthropists.

Is a rich donor’s giving really so different to our own? Imagine you have just won a significant amount of money. What will you do? My guess is that you will probably treat yourself to something whether that’s a holiday, a car, or a chihuahua and handbag (the choice of a recent winner). Then you might think about securing your long-term financial future and looking at how you can help those around you, especially any children you have. Next, you may think about giving your money away to charity. People who are or become wealthy also give from their surplus when they have ‘enough’. How we view ‘enough’ varies and may lead us to think that the wealthy should be giving more. But I am not sure how many of ‘us’ actually think about our own wealth and what enough is for us. There are some tools that can help us all do this. Using them we can calculate how rich we are in comparison to the rest of the world:

https://www.compareyourincome.org/

https://howrichami.givingwhatwecan.org/how-rich-am-i

Many of you reading this will be in the top percentages. (Some, of course, will not be in this position.) For those who are, it might be uncomfortable. We can think of lots of reasons why we are not as generous as we could be and why we need to redecorate part of our home or take that holiday. Othering is a psychological way to deal with our discomfort and feel better about ourselves. In this case it takes two common forms: criticising others, the rich donors, who we think should do even more; or ascribing suspect motives to those who are doing good things, philanthropists, because their generosity make us feel bad.

One of the ways to mitigate our tendency to other those ‘not like us’, is to meet and get to know them. In my role as a Philanthropy Advisor, I am lucky enough to do just that – to spend time with individuals and families who are wealthy and philanthropic. Of the ones I have met, their giving is often motivated by the same things yours and mine is – gratitude, compassion, anger at injustice, a sense of duty and a desire to make a positive difference in the world. The other thing we can do is challenge ourselves – how does our own giving hold up to our scrutiny? We can then extend the understanding we have about our own – perhaps imperfect - giving decisions to others. As Beth Breeze concludes “philanthropy is imperfect, messy and complex, but it is better than a world without philanthropy”. When it comes to our own choices about giving, we are perhaps not so different from wealthy philanthropists so let’s focus more positively on how we might all do more and encourage those who don’t yet give anything to join in too.

On othering: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425#what-is-othering

Proud Philanthropy

Pride celebrations have been a little less visible this year thanks to Covid. But there have still been reasons to celebrate when it comes to advancing LGBTQI rights: Stonewall marked its 30th anniversary; we have seen marriage equality gained in Costa Rica, and Sudan lifted the death penalty for same-sex relations. Pride has always been about protest alongside the party and there is still much to be done to reach equality. It is illegal to be LGBTQI in 69 countries; and discrimination and prejudice are widespread from bullying and beatings, to being denied a job or healthcare. The hostility is often state sponsored: Hungary recently banned adoptions by same sex couples, while Poland’s president signed a “Family Charter” pledging to block gay marriage, adoption by same sex couples, and the teaching on LGBT issues in schools.

The pandemic has also had a negative impact. A report to the UN found “that COVID-19 has a disproportionate impact on LGBT persons and that, with few exceptions, the response to the pandemic reproduces and exacerbates the patterns of social exclusion and violence already identified”. As with other marginalised communities, LGBTQI people are also adversely affected by the other crises of our time: racial and gender injustices, inequality and climate change.

Because of its independence, surely philanthropy is in a good place to step-up to support groups at the margins; to fill the gaps in government funding and to support activists pressing for justice? The reality is that philanthropic funds are falling short. The latest report from Global Philanthropy Project in partnership with Funders for LGBTQ Issues found that in 2017–2018 global LGBTI foundation funding made up less than 31 cents out of every $100 of overall global foundation funding. For every $100 awarded by government and multilateral agencies, only 4 cents benefited LGBTI communities. . A survey conducted by Consortium, a membership organisation for LGBTQI groups in the UK, found that 47% of organisations reported an immediate loss of earnings in the pandemic, with 20% saying they were concerned they would have to close.

A number of philanthropists and funders are leading the way in addressing this funding gap. Giving Tuesday listed the most famous LGBT philanthropists including Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), Sir Elton John and Ellen DeGeneres. The Global Philanthropy Project’s list of the top 20 Foundation LGBTI funders includes familiar names including the Ford Foundation, the National Lottery Community Fund and Comic Relief. As you would expect, there is a diversity of funding approaches. Some take a participatory grant-making approach like the International Trans Fund. Some work to raise the profile of LGBTQI giving, such as Horizons which is the Community Foundation behind Give Out Day in the US, which raised $1.7m this Pride month. Some have been around for ages like Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice which has awarded $31m to grassroots activists over 40 years. Others are newer such as Give Out in the UK, an international community foundation which takes a collective approach – pooling resources to support LGBTQI activists. It has just launched the world’s first LGBTQI Climate Fund to support work at the intersection of climate change and LGBTQI rights. Collective giving is also the approach of several giving circles that focus on supporting the LGBTQI community such as Black Trans Lives Thrive and the Jewish Pride Fund.

For those looking to mobilise more resource to the LGBTQI cause, my advice is:

1. Look at your existing giving and funding programmes through a rainbow lens. Are LGBTQI communities accessing your current youth/ housing/ health programmes? Are LGBTQI people served by the groups you fund? If not, get learning and involve the LGBTQI community to help you improve.

2. Identify and start funding groups that are directly supporting LGBTQI people and furthering LGBTQI justice. In the UK, you could start here to find organisations to back: https://www.consortium.lgbt/member-directory/ and in the US take a look at this list: https://philanthropytogether.org/20-lgbtq-led-nonprofits/

3. Act together – look to co-fund existing programmes or pool your resources with others in a giving circle or collective fund.

4. Align your philanthropy and your investments. There are lots of resources on LGBTQ+ Friendly investing – see https://www.investopedia.com/lgbtq-friendly-investing-5120600 or https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/lgbt-friendly-investments/

There are groups and funds in many more countries and intersections than covered here. Contact me for advice on applying a LGBTQI lens to your grant programme, and for help with identifying and selecting groups to fund or to explore collective funding options.

Trust-based philanthropy

Trust-based philanthropy has been gaining traction. It’s an approach that captures the spirit of our times in which ways are being sought to shift the power dynamic inherent in the relationship between fund-seekers and fund-givers. In traditional philanthropy the power sits with those with the money and how they choose to allocate it. In reality both sides need each other to achieve their aims. It is hard to do good if you can’t channel your funds to someone with expertise and the ability to make things happen; and you need access to funds to deliver change. To balance the relationship more equally, trust (the firm belief in the reliability, truth, credibility, and ability of someone) is at the heart of this exchange.

The Trust-based Philanthropy Project was set up by The Whitman Institute, Headwaters Foundation and Robert Sterling Clark Foundation in the US in 2018. The six principles of trust-based philanthropy are:

·       Give multi-year unrestricted funding

·       Do the homework

·       Simplify and streamline paperwork

·       Be transparent and responsive

·       Solicit and act on feedback

·       Offer support beyond the cheque

These practical steps – and the values behind them – chime with other recent calls for good practice in the UK such as the Covid-19 pledges and IVAR’s #FlexibleFunders campaign. These are all calls to change the grant-making process from one where fund-seekers are made to jump through funder-imposed hoops to one which respects their time and expertise.

One of the key approaches to enacting a trust-based approach is participatory philanthropy, where decisions on allocating funds are made by those most affected. This approach starts with trust: a fundamental belief that communities understand the issues, know what needs to be done and can work together to allocate resources. Though by no means an easy approach to take to your giving, it will not work at all if the trust is not there at the start. Khadra Aden of Camden Giving puts it like this in her blog for the recently launched  Participatory Grantmakers website: “We have to be deliberate in how we build community and trust before we even get to the decision making.”

For many philanthropists and grant-makers, the level of delegation in full participatory approaches is a leap too far. But taking a more trust-based approach is still well within reach. If you are not ready to ‘trust first’, you can spend time up front to understand organisations and those they serve, but with the intention that you will ‘trust later’ rather than continually checking and reassessing each and every move they want to make. This ‘trust later’ approach means the grant-giver identifies which groups to support and then gets out of their way and lets them allocate funds and direct their own strategies as they see fit. It is the approach taken by the funder Thousand Currents:

“We provide general operating support with no strings or conditions attached. Because of our due diligence before committing to our partners…”

And by philanthropist MacKenzie Scott when distributing nearly $6 billion in 2020: 

“We do this research and deeper diligence not only to identify organizations with high potential for impact, but also to pave the way for unsolicited and unexpected gifts given with full trust and no strings attached.”

By focussing time and effort upfront, this approach reduces the burden of grant management and reporting (for both sides) and replaces these with a lighter touch approach focussed on mutual learning. The initial scrutiny can also provide the reassurance needed to support new organisations.

This is important because without careful thought a trust-based approach can reinforce bias: in other words it is easier to trust who and what we already know. As expressed so clearly by Vu Le of Nonprofit AF: “It is only natural, that if you don’t trust people, you are careful with your money around them. This is a reason why 90% of funding in the sector still goes to white-led organizations”. For proactive fund-givers this means looking beyond their usual contacts and networks to actively seek out grassroots groups and those led by communities experiencing racial and other injustice who are doing great work. For those open to applications, it is ensuring their programmes, processes and attitudes to risk do not exclude new and marginalised groups from the opportunity to be supported and trusted.

Ultimately trust-based philanthropy creates a more equal partnership between fund-seekers and fund-givers. Whether a ‘trust first’ or ‘trust later’ approach is taken, in order for trust-based approaches to truly shift the power dynamic, they must be applied in a way that makes their rewards accessible to all.

https://trustbasedphilanthropy.org/principles-1

https://www.participatorygrantmaking.org/2021/02/09/putting-participation-in-participatory-grantmaking-by-khadra-aden/

https://mackenzie-scott.medium.com/384-ways-to-help-45d0b9ac6ad8

https://thousandcurrents.org/our-model/

https://nonprofitaf.com/2019/04/failure-the-new-kombucha-and-how-it-mainly-benefits-the-privileged/