How to become a philanthropy advisor

A question I get asked frequently is “how does someone get to be a philanthropy advisor?” and “how did I come to be one?” So I will explain my path and what I’ve learned from my research on other advisors.

My route into philanthropy advice

Although I did not realise it at the time, my journey into this profession started way back in my early twenties. My first job in the non-profit sector was as an advisor, working for Citizens Advice. I started as a volunteer advisor and then became paid to run advice services in mental health units and manage welfare benefits advice services.

My role as an advisor involved building rapport quickly, active listening, talking about money, and then helping someone achieve their goal. In this case it was usually helping them to improve their financial situation often by claiming state benefits (I am still very proud of my 100% record of my clients receiving Attendance Allowance). Although I no longer focus on state benefits, the skills I used then to build trusted relationships and help people to identify and realise their goals are exactly the same as I use now with my wealthy clients - there are just usually more 000s on the sums we are discussing.

Jump forward a few years - I moved from working in charities delivering services to grant making. This meant I gained experience in how best to support non-profits and allocate resources.  Then, after 20 years managing funding programmes, I decided to make the leap into consultancy. Initially, I did not have a clear plan and I said yes to a variety of projects before realising that my skillset matched being a philanthropy advisor. And that is what I now do, and have done for the last 10 years – advising philanthropic families to move from intention to action and thereby channelling private funds to public good.

Other routes into philanthropy advice

Unlike other financial professions, there is no fixed career path into philanthropy advising. In the book I co-wrote with Professor Beth Breeze, the philanthropy advisors we interviewed came to their role from a range of occupations: major donor fundraisers, international development and charity workers, financial services professionals, and a career advisor. There are shifts towards the professionalisation of philanthropy advice, but currently there are no shared standards or codes of conduct, and the training and qualifications outside of the US are limited. For now, most philanthropy advisors learn on the job.

As most people want to know that they are doing the job well and developing their practice, there is a need for more support and training. Our book, Advising Philanthropists: Principles and practice and the course I co-created and teach on, Advising Donors at the University of Kent are both good places to start. Then, if you want to become a philanthropy advisor - and a good one - consider what you bring and what areas and skills you need to develop in (for example, knowledge of non-profits, or financial products, or impact, or how to facilitate conversations about wealth). You can then build your own personal development programme with relevant courses, mentors, and sources of information.

If you do become a philanthropy advisor, you will find it really rewarding. And hopefully you will be one of a growing number who together will support wealthy people to give, give well, and give more.

Charity leader interview #3 Annemarie Shillito

Annemarie Shillito worked in communications, corporate responsibility and social innovation until she “stepped off my big corporate ladder” and moved back to North Devon. Annemarie is a changemaker involved in fundraising and campaigning for a number of community projects. She is Chair of Sunrise Diversity, which provides support for the LGBTQ+ community and Deputy Chair of charity SS Freshspring. In this interview, Annemarie shares her frustrations, good experience and advice.

You have worked on both sides of funding, which do you prefer?

Annemarie: In my corporate career I managed a social innovation and investment programme and assessed funding bids. From a comfort perspective it is easier being on that side of the fence. You feel more in control of your destiny. But the other side of the fence, seeking funds, is more rewarding, I love it when a good plan and the right fund come together, it's so satisfying. Funders however do assume that fundraisers don’t have any experience of grant-making so I suppose it’s my secret weapon that I can see both points of view.

What frustrates you about funding?

Annemarie: In my leadership roles with two charities, I am trying to make sure things are stable financially. There are so many things we want to deliver and if you are not careful all you end up talking about is whether you’ve got enough money. It’s always a balancing act but I think at the moment the environment for all charitable organisations is tough so we’re having to work harder at generating income while still keeping an eye on our vision for the future.  

Funders don’t always seem to understand how much voluntary effort is put in behind the scenes, especially with tiny charities that rely on Trustees to be delivering as well as steering. The practice that annoys me most is when you are filling in application and reporting forms online and you can’t see upfront what data you need to provide. It’s a blessing when a funder writes ‘We want to keep it easy, so we provide one application format for all our funds and these are the questions we’ll be asking’.

What other good funding practice do you want to see more of?

Annemarie: Having the opportunity to talk to funders about your organisation and your work or plans. These conversations help you discover if you fit with their priorities and also help the funder to better understand the needs of organisations and make better decisions. Making someone in the organisation available to talk to applicants is so useful.

I may be a bit nerdy but I love all the advice and support documentation provided by some funders. The National Lottery Heritage Fund has loads on their website which really helps if you put the time in to read it. And of course, case studies are always fascinating, reading how other organisations have dealt with a problem or bridged a gap with funding.

I also love funders that are tough at the outset, with face-to-face interviews and even visits, but then give good grants over an extended period and trust you to get on with your plans.

What advice do you want to share?

Annemarie: These three things come to mind:

1.      If funders say we need you to be more resilient, don’t take this lightly, think how you can be stronger in the longer term and then ask for the funds you need to help you get there. For example a governance review or help with developing a business plan or developing fundraising expertise in house.

2.      Do whatever you can to understand the world of those who benefit from the work of your organisation. You have to understand where people are coming from and what they want. It’s great to see the developing trend for co-creation, working with people to create solutions.

3.      Burn out is an issue. Within a charity you are passionate about, if things could fail you just keep on because you care so much. It is really hard to draw a line and protect your personal life. You have to develop a good team who understand each other and where anyone can say “I can’t manage this at the moment”. Build capacity in the team to support each other with a bit to spare for emergencies.

What keeps you going?

Annemarie: Knowing what I do has an impact. Both the charities I’m involved with are so inspiring and very worthwhile. They’ve both got wonderful teams of people – both Trustees and staff – which makes all things seem possible.

To guide conversations on philanthropy start with curiosity

When my Dad was living at home with dementia we bought him an Alexa. Our thinking was that this would be a really useful way for him to get the answers he wanted to questions he asked again and again: what time is it? what day is it? without wearing out the patience of his carers, family and friends. But he was a professor whose whole life was about enquiry, so of course he did not do that. He was curious about Alexa and wanted to know what ‘she’ thought of the news and if she had ever been to the country in the headlines? Needless to say we got rid of Alexa – she was good at information but not the art of conversation.

The importance of curiosity that my Dad instilled in me is put to good use in my philanthropy advising practice. I use questions as a tool to explore my client’s motivations, aspirations, worries, priorities, assumptions, beliefs and values. These initial conversations are a joy –when I get to know who my client is and what matters to them. Questions are also crucial in working out how I can support (and challenge) them to come up with the best way forward with their philanthropy. To skip this part would be offering my solutions without knowing whether or not they will be a good fit for my client. I would be missing the importance of getting to the heart of things: hopes, dreams, fears, and ideas about purpose and legacy.

Two recent reports (Onward’s Giving Back Better and Pro Bono Economics’ Ragged patchwork) have recommended training for financial advisors to enable them to be able to talk about and advise on philanthropy. This is one step in encouraging more giving in the UK – a prize where significant additional funding could be unlocked and directed to charities and other good causes. There are all sorts of barriers that stop financial advisors talking about philanthropy one of which is the fear of raising a topic you are not an expert in. I welcome the push to provide more knowledge and training in philanthropy and how to talk about it. Perhaps what is also needed is a shift in mindset – instead of starting with a desire to know all the answers before broaching the subject for advisors to start with curiosity. Faced with a client asking what they should do to help in a global polycrisis of interconnected issues (the climate crisis, issues of social justice, immediate needs and systemic problems) it is impossible to have an answer right away. Starting with curiosity – about your client and how they might make a difference in the world - will open up more meaningful conversations, deepen relations and allow both client and advisor to explore possible answers together. As with Alexa, philanthropists are not just looking for answers but a relationship and guided conversations on their journey.

Charity leader interview series #2: Rosemary Stephenson – who shares her top 3 funding frustrations

Rosemary Stephenson is the Chair of the Crediton Heart Project, leading a range of initiatives to increase opportunities in the area from running a community website to developing  a new community hub. Rosemary worked as a journalist in London before moving to Devon where her need to keep busy led to her creating an unpaid career for herself dedicated to her new community. She has considerable experience in the sector as an administrator, Trustee, School Governor, and fundraiser. In this interview, Rosemary sheds light on the challenges of seeking funds for smaller voluntary groups and why you need to think about succession even when you love what you do.

What is it like seeking funds for smaller voluntary groups?

Rosemary: It is easier if you are a registered charity as you have many more funds to choose from. If you are an unincorporated non-profit, then it is more of a scrabble, you are always more restricted, and you have to jump through more hoops. I understand that funders prefer to give to a charity as that structure suggests they are more reliable and professional. But they are missing out on supporting projects that only need small sums of money to achieve a lot.  

What is your secret for raising funds?

Rosemary: The secret is looking at the funder’s criteria and the kinds of things they fund. By understanding who they are and what they are interested in you can ensure you don’t waste time fitting a square peg into a round hole. Funding is a bit of a game. You pick out of your project what you think will appeal to them and sell the elements that fit their criteria. I don’t wish to sound cynical, but you need to be skilled in telling them what they want to hear. With some other funders, such as the county, district and town councils, then it is important to build relationships and keep them informed about your work.

What do you think about current funding practice?

Rosemary: I have had success with the Lottery. Their criteria are broad enough to fit a range of projects, they make relatively quick decisions, and their reporting is not too onerous. You feel that they are on your side. It is also really helpful when funders have people available to discuss your idea. It saves a lot of time if you can talk through your project and find out whether or not it is likely to be funded before you complete a time-consuming application.

I have three top frustrations:

1.      Funders like new projects. When we started the Crediton Flag Project in 2013, it was a great success. We rented a shop on the high street, employed two artists, ran flag making workshops for the community for three months, and decorated the town. By the third year, no one was interested in funding it apart from the town council and we had to charge people to take part. I can tell a funder that it is wonderful and increases social cohesion, but I cannot pretend it is new.

2.      Too much reporting. We received a £5,000 grant to run arts and crafts workshops for families. Just 2 months in, we were asked to fill in all these long forms about how it’s going. It’s fine to report back at the end but when you are still working to make things happen then it is unnecessary and annoying.

3.      Funders don’t get back to you. You spend time on an application and are told they will decide in May. May comes and you hear nothing, so you ask and are told the meeting did not happen. Then the meeting happens, and they still don’t tell you the outcome and you just hear incidentally that your project has not been funded. That has happened with several funders – you apply and don’t hear anything.

What keeps you going?

Rosemary: There is an issue with succession - where people like me keep going because there’s no one to take over. For example, every village hall is being run by a group of volunteers. Often, they have been doing it for twenty years. Every so often they say they need new people, and no one comes forward and so the same people keep going on and on.

I have been doing this work for so long that I cannot see an exit strategy. I worry that if I stop then everything will stop. But no one is indispensable, and I don’t think it is healthy for the same people to keep going. After a while you become stale, and it is good to have different people. By staying in your role you let others off the hook and so you need to state your intention to stop and actively seek new people out.

The reason I keep going is that I find it really satisfying when I create something from nothing. Something that would not happen without getting the funding and bringing the right people together. Crediton is quite an ordinary town, but it is an amazing community and I have seen it become even more vibrant and a more exciting place to live.

Charity leader interview series #1: Fiona Mahoney makes the case for multi-year, unrestricted funding

I spend a lot of my time reading and talking about changes in grant making and philanthropy. But has there been any real change in practice? Is talk of trust and shifting power getting through to where it matters – on the frontline? In order to see if there is a gap between rhetoric and reality, I have embarked on a series of interviews with charity leaders. Not the big names but leaders of the smaller charities working hard across my patch, the South West of England.

In this first interview, I would love you to meet Fiona Mahoney, Chief Executive of Reminiscence Learning based in South Somerset. The charity specialises in dementia care and training including the Archie project, an intergenerational dementia awareness project that links primary schools, care homes, businesses, and community members to create dementia friendly communities. Fiona explains what it takes to keep going in the charity sector and makes a heartfelt plea for ‘sloppy funding’.

What are you like as a charity leader?

Fiona: I love my job. When I wake up in the morning, I am excited to go to work. I never know what’s going to happen. I am unusual in that my background as an OT means I am very hands-on. I make a plan, write new courses, create an activity, and then deliver this so that I can experience it. Only then will I let it go. I wouldn’t expect anyone in my team to do something that I haven’t. I have an amazing group of people around me who support me with the areas that are not my excellence. With their support I do the job I’m best at doing: leading, motivating, being innovative, taking a few risks.

You have been a charity leader for 20 years what keeps you going?

Fiona: The fact that I know I make a difference to people’s lives – both those with dementia and their carers.

How much time do you spend fundraising?

Fiona: I think about it every day. I do a lot of planning, a lot of budgeting and spend my time trying to work out how we can spread the money further. I feel like a ‘professional beggar’ as I am always asking for money, for raffle prizes, auction prizes, funding for a project, or sponsorship. I spend weeks and months filling in forms, uploading different documents and films, and selling my soul to show how we are the best. Then the “we are sorry to inform you” letter comes, and you have to be like a Weeble and bounce back up. You have to be resilient and love what you are doing so that you can show your anxious staff that it’s all fine and you are not worried that you didn’t get that funding.

Have you seen changes in funding practice?

Fiona: During Covid we had unrestricted funding but now it has gone back to how it was before. The majority of funders won’t give you core, sustainable funding. Ring-fenced funding is the most frustrating thing. You have to put in an element of refreshments, transport and everything else. If you don’t then spend the grant in exactly that way you often end up being questioned. I had a grant recently where I started to feel it wasn’t worth it because they asked for so much detail. A proportion of the costs were salaries and the funder asked to see staff pay slips. When I said no, they wanted to know why I would not provide this evidence. Why can’t they trust that I pay my staff?

The thing that gets to me most is that funders are always looking for something new that will be exciting for them to report on. When we first created the Archie project, everyone wanted to fund it. Once it was established and others were also delivering intergenerational projects funders were not interested in funding it to continue. The Archie project is about long-term prevention. If we teach children about dementia, it helps reduce the stigma; they will be prepared when their family members have dementia; and they may join the caring workforce with knowledge and skills. I shouldn’t be teaching dementia awareness to care home staff. I should be teaching it in every primary school across the country. That long-term work needs long-term funding not one-year grants.

What changes would you like to see in funding practice?

 Fiona: In a small charity you need ‘sloppy funding’. Enthusiasm and drive is great but this work is exhausting. You need enough funding to have some slack so you can pull in extra staff when you need to.

There is a compelling case for donors and funders to provide multi-year funding with less restriction. For example, see IVAR’s report Making the case for unrestricted funding. It is frustrating to learn that changes in funding practice that happened in Covid have not been sustained for Fiona and her team.

Three Philanthropy Approaches to Watch

This summer I have caught up on some reading and so wanted to share some philanthropy approaches to keep an eye on. These are not all new but seem to be gaining traction or certainly being written about more.

1. Reparative Philanthropy

This approach recognises that wealth has arisen due to extraction and exploitation in the past and these wrongs need to be acknowledged and resources returned to the communities affected. One example of putting this into practice comes from philanthropist Laura Trevelyan who explained her response to her family’s links to slavery which included a £100,000 donation to set up student bursaries at the University of the West Indies. She is one of the founders of Heirs of Slavery, a new group for British people whose ancestors profited from transatlantic slavery. Heirs of Slavery are campaigning for increased reparations as is the Decolonising Wealth Project which in June committed $20 million over five years to boost campaigns for reparations across the US.

If you want to know more then take a look at Derek Bardowell’s book, Giving Back or for a shorter read, the National Center for Family Philanthropy’s article ‘The Work of a Lifetime: Reparative Philanthropy, Relationships, Healing, and Joy’ has some examples of families and foundations taking a reparative approach.

2. Solidarity Philanthropy

I have started to see the word ‘solidarity’ come up, most recently in Rhodri Davies’ blog about philanthropist Leah Hunt-Hendrix who says the notion of solidarity is core to her philanthropy. For me, solidarity is the time-old tradition of giving to those you believe in and showing your support for the work they do. Its current rise is linked to the increase in funders trusting their funded partners alongside giving unrestricted funds, a move away from funder-defined metrics and an increased recognition of grassroots movements in achieving systemic change. Solidarity encompasses the idea that we are all in this together and that funders are working alongside rather than taking a top-down approach. It is a more engaged approach where donors get involved beyond the money – adding their time and influence to a cause.

3. Community-led collaboratives

This approach combines two key trends: the dramatic rise in funder collaborations and shifting power to those with lived experience who are closest to the issues. It is a powerful combination of funds and local knowledge and something I expect to see grow as more philanthropists look to be guided by those on the ground. For a compelling argument, watch Rebecca Darwent’s TED talk. She gives examples such as Clima Fund which raises funds from donors and foundations which are then allocated using participatory grant making to support grassroots movements addressing the climate crisis. It sees the continued shift in the role of grant makers from decision makers to enablers.

And lastly, I wanted to highlight the WINGS Transforming Philanthropy Initiative Report as it summarises the current thinking amongst institutional funders and sets out key principles that will influence future funding strategies. Of note is a re-emphasis of the role of philanthropy as risk capital. Recognising that philanthropy is too small to address the global polycrisis on its own, WINGS highlights its unique selling point as taking risks: “several of philanthropy’s most unique and precious values include its ability to fail, support what markets or governments will not, test new approaches and innovations that can be scaled and trust those who are closest to the needs.”

There is no doubt in my mind that philanthropy continues to have an important civic role and also that we are at an interesting time of evolving practice including these three philanthropic approaches.

Philanthropy archives – and why they matter

Perhaps, like me, you have not given much thought to what charities, foundations and philanthropists do with all the materials they have gathered over the years. A recent conversation with Jayne Lacny shed light on why philanthropy archives matter. As a consultant with Notes on Philanthropy, Jayne supports her clients to work out what to do with all those papers and data and where best to locate them. She is a passionate advocate for archives and the treasures within – from the history of fundraising before the NHS to the joy of reading the letters of a grumpy Victorian philanthropist.

Here I share some of Jayne’s expertise and why she thinks we should all give archives more attention:

When is a box of files in the corner an archive?

Jayne: It is the point when you agree what is going to happen to these materials in the long-term. You decide which of your papers and digital records you will keep and agree a simple contract setting out who is going to look after them. This will cover their safe storage and what access the public and researchers can have. Archives come in all shapes and sizes from the National Archives at Kew to local history centres and museums. Some charities even set up their own archives, for example the White Ribbon Association has a collection on the temperance movement.

Why don’t we think about archives more?

Jayne: There are a variety of reasons why people fail to put their materials somewhere safe. They end up destroying them or shoving them into a dark corner of a building and leaving them to rot. They do nothing because they:

1. lack time to sort the materials out

2. lack money

3. don’t see the importance of keeping this information for future generations

4. don’t want to lose control of their materials

5. feel guilty diverting time and effort away from their operational work

6. don’t want anyone looking at their private papers – especially true for family foundations

7. don’t know where to start or what to do.

People don’t realise that archiving does not cost a huge amount and that there is help available to advise on GDPR and to catalogue your information and you can say what material gets released to the public and when.

Why do philanthropy archives matter?

Jayne: They provide evidence of the past that we can learn from. We can research the influence of philanthropy and how it has evolved. We can understand more about giving, about impact, about the history of fundraising, the role of women in philanthropy and the generosity of donors. We can call upon first hand testimony from letters, reports, memos, notes, photos and films. As well as giving us facts and dates we can uncover stories. Without archives these stories would be lost. My plea to all charities, foundations and donors is to act today. Carry out an oral history project so that the experiences of older family members or charity staff are captured. And put your information into an archive so that future researchers don’t come across great big gaps because we did not take action to preserve our stories.

My conversation with Jayne made me realise that if charities and philanthropists don’t keep these valuable materials then the voice of our sector and its importance will be missed – our history will belong to the private and public sectors.  These records enable us to examine problematic links to empire as well as helping us celebrate the good philanthropy has achieved. Archives hold the stories of our sector and help us to understand our past and how this has shaped our present.

Philanthropy options: To seek or be found?

Much has been written about Mackenzie Scott’s approach to her philanthropy: mobilising large amounts of money with no formal structure and giving grants with no strings attached. Scott started out with a proactive approach where she used philanthropy advisors to identify organisations to support. Now she has added a responsive approach, setting up a website, Yield, as a vehicle to accept applications. Both methods - proactive and responsive - have pros and cons for both the fund-seeker as well as the fund-giver.

Proactive – the advantages

A proactive approach, which goes out looking for organisations to fund, places the burden of effort on the side of the fund-giver. It involves what the trust-based philanthropy project calls ‘do your homework’ which means using all the publicly available information to find organisations that fit the mission. This can also include asking and listening to recommendations from other funders, practitioners and communities. Because the workload is in the funder’s control, it is more manageable and predictable than responding to uncertain levels of requests. It saves a lot of effort

on the fund-seeker’s side as there is no need to search for funding pots or write applications.

Proactive - the disadvantages

Being proactive also has downsides. It gives an advantage to those organisations which have a profile and an up-to-date and active online presence. So, it can miss groups doing good work who are ‘under the radar’ and operating without a communications budget.  It can also favour those who have a very clear mission such as supporting people with dementia. It is harder to spot those community-based organisations that address a whole range of needs (including helping people with dementia). Doing away with applications removes the ability of fund-seekers to set out their case directly. Decisions are made on historic or current information in the public domain rather than finding out directly about future plans and there is limited opportunity to gain the full story.

To mitigate these downsides, fund-givers need to be aware of the limits to their networks and knowledge and work hard to find the smaller, lower profile groups. Once they have identified a potential fit, they can add visits or meetings to their process in order to learn more about an organisation and start building a relationship. They can also set up a mechanism for groups who think they are a strong fit with the funder’s published priorities to use to get in touch directly.

Responsive – the advantages

The alternative method is to be responsive, to set out the funding criteria and ask organisations to submit an application which sets out what they need and why. Hopefully this open approach means that funders hear from all the groups working in their priority area. Receiving many applications is a useful way to compare similar organisations and select the strongest. In theory it gives more control to the applicant to decide whether or not it is worth their time applying and to convey their request in their own words.

Responsive – the disadvantages

In practice it does not always feel that the fund-seeker is free to provide the information they want as they are fitting their response into set questions and word counts. Success rates can be notoriously low as requests outweigh the funds available and so much effort is wasted – on both sides – in writing and assessing many requests that will not be funded. The competitive nature of this approach advantages those organisations with the resources to pay for skilled bid writers. The understandable desire to reduce the volume of applications can lead funders to adopt poor practice. For example, the first come first served approach where funds close to applications after a certain number of applications are received which disadvantages smaller groups who do not have the capacity to submit a bid quickly.

Responsive funders can reduce the downsides by designing processes that are as simple and accessible as possible and by publishing their criteria and success rates. A good place to start is IVAR’s guidance on open and trusting practices “that make life easier for those they fund”.

So which is best: proactive or responsive? Being proactive makes sense where there is a narrow focus and responsive approaches work well where a funder has a broad remit. For funder-givers, it is a case of starting with the strategy and deciding which will best help you to achieve your mission. And then acknowledging that whichever you chose has downsides and doing your best to mitigate these – making sure you cast your net wide when seeking out good partners, or making it as easy as possible to apply.

Philanthropy in 2023 - predictions

Philanthropy in 2023 – predictions

So here we are already one month in to 2023, which in the UK at least is getting off to a fairly bleak start with the cost of living crisis and strikes, let alone the war in Ukraine and the climate crisis. With philanthropy as a potential force for good, it is timely to think about its contribution in the year ahead. I have highlighted what has struck me from the articles and podcasts I look out for at this time each year, which bravely make predictions for philanthropy in 2023. I have also provided the links and encourage you to explore these further.

Philanthropisms Podcast: Episode 27: 2023 Predictions for Philanthropy & Civil Society

Rhodri Davies covers a lot of ground: the disappointing response to the cost of living crisis, the possibility of charity workers going on strike, growth in collaboration, wealth inequality and paying taxes. One observation that resonated with me was people calling themselves philanthropists who do not fit the classic philanthropist stereotype (a tech billionaire, usually white, male and American). Rhodri shares the example of You Tube prankster Mr Beast which reminded me of other recent examples of philanthropists who break the mould such as Stormzy and Marcus Rashford. I welcome this expansion of who counts as a philanthropist – though there is still room for more women please.

Philanthropy and digital civil society blueprint

Lucy Bernholz’s forecast leans more to the digital. She makes a compelling case for philanthropy and nonprofits to up their game on how they understand and use data and digital systems: “Collecting, storing, analyzing, protecting, using, and destroying data is to today’s civil society organizations what collecting and using donated funds and time have always been— core to achieving a mission.” It is commendable that she scores how well she did on her 2022 predictions – actually pretty impressive. This year’s predictions include the end of Twitter, and Effective Altruism returning to a niche pursuit, as well as a growth in co-operative ownership platforms.  There is also a great list of buzzwords to look out for – regenerative philanthropy is already well used. Other terms I have spotted lately include ‘ethical philanthropy’ and ‘solidarity philanthropy’.

Johnson Centre for Philanthropy: 11 Trends in Philanthropy for 2023

Some of the trends are not new but still of interest as they predict more collaboration, and increased pressure to spend more and quickly. This is a US-centric report and the backlash against ESG as ‘woke capitalism’ was new to me. I was aware of the problems with greenwashing and the difficulty with measurement, but not this political angle. (A reminder to keep venturing out of my bubble this year). The report raises the interesting question of when is something in philanthropy a fad and when is it a trend? They conclude it is too soon to tell for racial equity but the signs are encouraging. It is always important to identify action and not just words in philanthropy – something this report also reminds us of in the growing expectation to hold non-profits to account when their actions do not match their mission.

And always worth a read is the 12 predictions from Vu Le at Nonprofit AF.

They are refreshingly honest in describing their predictions as “surfing the internet and then guessing”. Non-profit unions, AI and more engagement with neurodiversity are all in here. I also like their prediction of a rise in alternatives to articles and podcasts. So watch out for their prediction of philanthropy stand-up comedy shows and shadow puppetry. 

I agree with many of the predictions gathered here including increased collaboration, more trust-based and community-led philanthropy, and the importance of technology. To end, it seems only fair that I add some predictions of my own:

1. Increased attention on contribution and ethics rather than impact.

2. The interesting new ideas and models will come from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

3. I think there will be a spiritual and moral impetus behind promoting generosity as we will increasingly need to share and better redistribute resources in response to rising opposition to inequality and an increased number of environmental refugees.

Now is a good time for you to reflect on what lies ahead. Thinking about what shifts are coming will help you be better prepared to embrace (or resist) them.

Wishing you all a peaceful 2023

Photo credit: Aakash Dhage on Unsplash

Reflections of a first-time author

The saying goes that everyone has a book inside them. I did not think that included me because writing a book has never been on my bucket list. Yet I have just co-authored one (Advising Philanthropists: principles and practice, written with Beth Breeze) which will be published early next year. We decided to write it to explain what it is that philanthropy advisors like me actually do and why we matter and to address the lack of attention given to this relatively new profession.

I hope our book is a source of learning for others. Here I want to share what I have learned from the unexpected task of writing a book.

First of all, I am in complete awe that there are so many books in the world and so many people have written them. I found it really hard and so have a much deeper respect for every author. Especially those who write more than one book knowing what is involved. The bits I found hard were:

• carving out the time to write. I had fantasies of escaping to a shepherd’s hut in the hills or a Scottish bothy to write alone for weeks on end. In reality it was a case of juggling writing alongside life, family and work.

• the fact that the world of philanthropy and philanthropy advice did not hold still whilst I wrote about it. Issues kept on shifting and providing a stream of new ideas, reports, books, examples and stories.

• knowing where to stop when every sentence could be a paragraph, every paragraph a chapter and every chapter a book. Deciding what to include and what to leave out reminded me of my work with clients. When I help them decide on the focus of their philanthropy they have to realise that they can’t do it all.

And the one that surprised me the most was the imposter syndrome that took hold when the book neared publication, exposing my writing to public scrutiny. I took comfort from discovering that this apparently happened to some of the very best writers such as Maya Angelou and Agatha Christie who are way beyond my humble beginnings.

Fortunately, there were good bits too: the lovely flow when fully absorbed in a topic; everything I learned whilst reading others work and trying to distil key concepts concisely; and receiving positive comments from reviewers and endorsers. I am feeling proud of making a contribution in my field of philanthropy advising and in my achievement of writing the book I never thought I would.

For more information on the book and to pre-order: www.dsc.org.uk/aph