SPEAKER_00 0:37

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context. I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and this week is another interview, and it's with Cassie Robinson. Now, Cassie is someone I've known for a while. She wears many different hats. At the moment, she's working on a range of different projects. Prior to that, she worked at the National Lottery Community Fund here in the UK, where she headed up their England grantmaking strategy, and before that worked specifically on their grantmaking around digital issues. I first met her, I think, when she was working at the public policy think tank.everyone, which sort of focuses on the impact of technology on people and communities. And she has many more strings to her bow and a very storied CV. So I sat down a couple of weeks ago now with Cassie to talk about grant making and particularly kind of, I think, take stock since both of us had moved fairly recently within the last year from positions where we were working kind of within big institutions within the world of philanthropy to a position where we're sort of sitting slightly outside that, but still obviously kind of interested in the same issues and to kind of think about you know what both of us had learnt about the the world of being a philanthropoid, as it were. So yeah, we discussed that that whole question of kind of what it's like working in the uh the slightly odd world of philanthropy and kind of administering wealth. Um I asked Cassie about you know what she'd enjoyed about working in in sort of large institutional grant making or what she found frustrating. Um we talked about how much power philanthropoids and people working in philanthropy actually have to shape the institutions they work in. Um we talked quite a bit about whether the traditional distinctions between philanthropy or the non-profit sphere and kind of other approaches, whether those are commercial approaches or more sort of networked approaches, make sense in this day and age, and increasingly sort of when we're thinking about trying to have an impact on problems in the world, whether uh philanthropy should be the default that we look to or whether there are other options and whether we need to think more about kind of more blended approaches. Um we talked about power uh inevitably, you know, when you talk to somebody uh uh who's been involved in grant making, it makes sense to do that. Um, we talked about some of the the questions around sort of power imbalances within philanthropy, and and also interestingly discussed whether actually some of the narrative about shifting power or giving away power goes too far in some cases, and actually we need to sort of rebalance that with thinking more about how power is used by institutions and how they can kind of lean into and accept the responsibility for for that power. Um, we talked about foresight and sort of looking ahead to the future within civil society, and particularly uh the role that different forms of knowledge and information and sort of fiction and art can play in helping people to think more effectively about that and kind of develop social imagination. Um, we talked about some of the challenges within the world of philanthropy between kind of incrementalism and radicalism, and particularly the concerns that there are some issues at the moment, particularly the climate crisis, that that are so urgent and and enormous that they perhaps demand entirely new kind of approaches and that the the softly, softly approach of of previous years won't necessarily cut it anymore. Um linked to that we talked about risk and the sort of willingness of organizations and institutions within philanthropy to take the risks that are necessary. Um and we talked about working uh more in kind of networked ways and whether the the barriers of traditional organizations and institutions might break down um as people start to think more about kind of you know how they connect across different institutions and different sectors. Um, and involved in that intriguingly, there was some discussion of how uh philanthropy could potentially learn from uh fungi uh and the uh sort of mycelia connections of fungi. So, you know, definitely keep an ear out for that. Um, so without further ado, let's go into the conversation. I will be back uh as usual at the end for a little bit of housekeeping and tidying up. Okay, great. I'm here with Cassie Robinson. Hi, Cassie.

SPEAKER_02 5:02

Hi, Rodri, nice to be here.

SPEAKER_00 5:04

It's nice to have you on the podcast again. I mean, almost a sort of return visit, given that we did speak previously when I was doing the CAF Giving Thought podcast. Um, but it's great to have you back and hopefully kind of chat about maybe some of the same stuff, but also some some different things. Um, I'm not going to attempt to introduce uh you and kind of give you a job title. I'm sure lots of people listening uh know you and your work, but maybe the best place to start is just for you uh to give a little bit of background on kind of who you are and what you work on for people who don't know you.

SPEAKER_02 5:32

I'll try and do that in a succinct way. Um, I mean, the easiest thing is for people to just go to my website and choose one of my many different bios that I play around with often. Um, but I guess in brief, uh my background is in design. Um, and so kind of everything I do draws on that. Um, but I have spent the last three and a bit years working around funding and philanthropy, and most recently left the National Lottery Community Fund, and I'm now working across five different foundations at the moment, doing a range of roles. But broadly, I would say my work for all of them is in the design of funding strategy and looking at innovation, new practice, and designing strategies that really are about more transformative change, as well as doing kind of what I call field building work, which is trying to sort of grow resource influence networks around a particular sort of theme or approach. And so that's yeah, that's broadly who I am and what I'm doing at the moment.

SPEAKER_00 6:42

And and yeah, definitely you said there that you kind of for the last few years had had gone and worked in the philanthropy and and funding world. I think one of the one of the things I wanted to sort of ask you to kick off was you what what did you enjoy about that experience of kind of moving into the world of institutional philanthropy? And what what perhaps did you find you know frustrating about it?

SPEAKER_02 7:03

I think the so so going into working in institutional philanthropy, I I guess probably at the time, I hadn't even thought of it as philanthropy, because in a way, uh, where I was previously working, it's kind of public money rather than philanthropic money. Um, although maybe as you're the expert in philanthropy, you might say that's not true. So that but that's probably a whole other conversation. So actually, what felt important about where that money came from, uh, you know, was the fact that it was public money. So I actually really loved working somewhere where I felt a strong sense of accountability to how the money was spent. That that's something that I kind of miss in a way from some of the work I'm doing at the moment, where that feedback loop, that kind of accountability isn't so present in a lot of other kinds of philanthropy. I guess there's also something about the certainly at the National Lottery Community Fund, the scale of funding could and should mean that there's a diversity of approaches and different kinds of theories of change within the one institution. And that that yeah, that can afford like lots of different approaches to funding. And I think that's one of the value, valuable things about working somewhere so large. I guess there's also there was something about just the public, like being in the public consciousness in the sense of the brand, and again, what that can afford, like the everydayness of the brand in every corner shop. There's something really powerful and useful about that if you're trying to be part of, yeah, like big, big change work. I think the the things that are frustrating, um, and and obviously I don't specifically necessarily mean in my previous employer, but just generally in public institutions. I think I think we can sometimes also forget who we're working for and who our work is on behalf of. So I think there's a lot of narrative in the in the sort of grant-making world that you're there, you know, well, you you should be there to serve your grant seekers and your grantees, and and secondly, your board, maybe. Whereas for me, the thing that's missing in all of that is actually personally, I'm motivated by serving like communities and the social issues, not not the grantees and grant seekers are secondary to me. And I feel like that in in some institutional philanthropy, I think we we can forget that. I also think there's sometimes like quite a lot of inertia in institutions. We're in a series of multiple crises at the moment, and that's very likely to continue. And that sense of urgency or the idea that there's more risk in not doing something than doing it is not always very visible in the sort of culture and in the way things are designed or the speed at which things happen. Um, and then another thing I guess I found particularly frustrating is just, you know, money is not the only asset you have as a large institution. You have platforms, your kind of comms should be totally a part of how you have greater impact. You have different kinds of power, you have access to different people in power, you have a role in convening. There's just many other ways to think of unusual assets as an institutional, um, as an institution. And I'm not always sure that they're put to really good use.

SPEAKER_00 10:52

No, I mean, I think that's that's right. I think you know there's a lot of talk about, you know, foundations, for instance, using the whole range of their assets by, you know, by which people usually mean uh financial assets, and they're talking about kind of investment practices, but there's as you say, there's far more assets of that that they could be using, and actually, you know, platform and the sort of authenticity that they have, and in some cases the brand that they have is is you know is definitely one of those assets, and I'm not sure it is always used to to the full. Um you you mentioned there about um, you know, obviously we're kind of recording this um on the day when the IPCC put out the uh latest report on the the the state of the climate crisis, which obviously is you know extremely um worrying, and we're in the midst of the um the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Um so you know, it feels like the world is a very unstable place at the moment, kind of, and there are huge challenges facing you know communities and uh and societies kind of around the world. Do you when you think about kind of the point you're at and what you want to do next, does does it feel as though you know your energies are best directed or well directed, putting them back into philanthropy? Or do you sometimes sort of feel as though actually there are other places you could be putting that energy that would be more effective in addressing some of these these challenges?

SPEAKER_02 12:13

I think that's um that's definitely a question I don't have a single answer for. And I think it's like it probably changes every hour at the moment. You know, where where can I be most useful in in what's happening? Um I do think there's something to be said for you know, a lot of philanthropy. Uh I think I think there's work to be done that's much further upstream in this kind of financial system. So, you know, great if you can be part of philanthropic money being spent more wisely, more effectively, um, maybe sometimes more rapidly. But I guess just the fact that we have such extreme wealth. And, you know, I recently came across the work of Steph Broby and the Good Ancestor Movement and the brilliant work she's doing to try and give completely different advice to people that have accrued great wealth, and the patriotic millionaires movement, where millionaires themselves are asking the government to tax them more money, and just things like the who owns all the big properties in London and the kind of waste and wealth that is just sitting there. So I feel like there's this kind of the extreme wealth and how to deal with that in some ways feels much more urgent and would release a lot more money than just working out how to do grant making in a better way. I do also think that I guess one of someone asked me last year to go and speak to their team, uh do like a lunchtime session with their team because their team were tentative about spending money. They were a foundation. And I guess working in the world of funding, which I have only done for three and a bit years, I hadn't really realized how hard people find it to spend money. And you know, it's not it's not our money, and there's so much need out there that yeah, that that does make me think that people that are comfortable at moving money who are able to take risks and to not be tentative are probably people that we need more of in some of these foundations. So I guess there's there's like where you place yourself, how far upstream in the kind of financial system and all of the inequity and and issues that it has. But if you do land in philanthropy, if if you think that's where your role should be, and I realise I'm not making this about me, I'm sort of othering it. If if I'm gonna spend some of my time still working in philanthropy, then yeah, working somewhere where you can move money not only quickly, I think wisely is also important. Uh and I do know that for me personally, what I can't do is work somewhere where they're only going to be willing to fund what feels like amelioration of existing issues because there's something that's so inauthentic about that in the face of all the crises you've just mentioned. Like, why would we only be funding projects and initiatives that are that are just about making today better when you know we've got these enormous macro issues that are just gonna create more and more interconnecting crises? And if we're not doing more work that's about preparedness for that and that is in recognition of a fundamentally climate-altered world, then why are we kind of pretending to people that everything will be all right if we just give them 10 grand here and 50 grand here?

SPEAKER_00 16:06

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think there's there's a lot in that. And I think, I mean, on that question there of you know, kind of funding, you know, amelioration or just the symptoms of problems. I know this is one that often gets kind of brought up when people are making a distinction between charity and and philanthropy, sort of saying, you know, charity is just addressing those symptoms and the causes, but there, if it's to be philanthropy, there has to be some element of kind of addressing the underlying um uh, you know, the actual uh sort of underlying problems. And even then there's a question about whether that happens at a structural level or kind of within existing um systems. It does feel to me as though, particularly for kind of foundation philanthropy, and if we're talking about endowed foundations, those that are more on the spectrum towards let's just fund amelioration doesn't seem like the best use of the level of kind of independence and risk taking and in some cases kind of lack of accountability that that an endowed foundation would would have, particularly as you say, when there are problems that are so big and so urgent um that you know they really require some uh pretty kind of radical potentially you know things to be done. Um in terms of those people working in in that world, you know, you're sort of talking about your own experience there, do you do you get a sense of of how much power or how much influence the the sort of you know the philanthropoids, the people working in the foundations or administering the wealth actually have to you know to shape the institutions and to to reform them or to kind of fundamentally change the model? Or do you do you think people sometimes feel a bit trapped within within the existing models?

SPEAKER_02 17:48

I'm sure they do, but I I guess that there's like different roles to take in shaping or trying to influence change. And I guess people that want to try and really shift an institution in how it does things, and like we need some people that want to do that, that that's a long-term piece of work. Um, and actually, you probably need a couple of different types of people to do that work that kind of pass the baton from one to another. Because I think like if it's if it's existing institutions where there is this inertia that I mentioned earlier, or this kind of fear and and very low appetite for risk, and certainly not a lot of skill or capability in how to do more experimental work, then you need you need someone that can kind of disrupt that. That's often not the same person that is then gonna be able to actually lead, lead like deep change. And sometimes it can be the same person, but they're they are different things. I think that there's there's the there's the person or the people that are going to shake, shake things up and kind of expose how the status quo isn't really serving its purpose, and then there's the people who kind of can do that deep, careful, relational change work of bringing an organization through a transition. Um, I have to say, I don't know many examples of institutions really being able to change. So it does um, you know, not and I'm talking about people that have stayed in leadership roles for maybe three to five years, really trying to start to shift institutions. And so sometimes I do wonder whether actually we we just need some new institutions and we kind of have to give up on the old ones, but I'm not someone that feels wholly comfortable with that. But I also just to go back to your question, in terms of you know, do people have diff philanthropoids have the power to shape the institutions they work in? Again, I'd just say that there are different ways to do that shaping. So you can do small things that might ripple out and totally shift practice in a way you hadn't anticipated. Like I think we set up a scanning and sensing network at the National Lottery Community Fund whilst I was there. And that was really trying to encourage people working inside the fund to think beyond the present and actually recognize that there is a future horizon. And just doing that as a consistent practice, I think probably did shift some people's view and certainly shifted what they might look out for in terms of what they went on to fund. And I think you can go in and really sort of move the overton window even for a short while, even if you aren't able to do that embedded long-term change, just moving the overton window and showing what else is possible has a value. Um, and I I also think we're moving into a time where you know that there is different, there are different kinds of power. And in big institutions, kind of positional power and hierarchical power has a certain hold on things, but actually, kind of social power and identity like power through identity also has some currency and and and affords other things. So I think whatever position you're in in an institution, there are definitely different ways you can shape and influence what's going on there.

SPEAKER_00 21:49

Yeah, I'd I'd I know I'd certainly agree. And it one of the things I I found really interesting, I'd I'd be really interested to get your take on is it feels as though some of the momentum for change. Sort of within the world of philanthropy, whether it's truly transformative or you know whether it's more kind of incremental changes is coming less from institutions or organizations themselves and kind of within the hierarchies and more from networks that have been developed across some of those hierarchies. I mean, do you think that might be more where people need to be willing to think? And actually, when envisaging the future and how to address some of these issues, to kind of get away from being linked to you know the existing kind of nameplate that they've got on the door or what's on their business cards, and thinking more about how we could work you know across kind of networks in in new ways and maybe sort of get away from from some of these ideas that we currently have of how organizations are structured.

SPEAKER_02 22:46

I think I'd love to see how institutions and networks work more together and how we actually kind of invest in like resource and understand better that the in-between space, like the relational space between the networks and the movements and the institutions, because I feel like they need one another to play slightly different roles. I guess in the UK, and my view at the moment is quite UK-centric, which I hope changes. Um, I do feel like a lot of the network are still very much centred around kind of exposing and quantifying the scale of problems and campaigning against the worst effects of issues rather than there being sort of many networks that are what I would think of as more third horizon work in terms of creating and building the new and the alternatives. So I feel like there's some we need some other kinds of networks, and maybe that some of that will emerge from the initiatives that are doing this work around collective imagination. Um, or the, you know, there are some really brilliant examples like Onion Collective or Civic Square or Open Systems Lab that are actually doing that building and creating of alternatives and they are themselves growing network. Um, but yeah, for me it's about it's not an either-or. I think there's that it's about the relationship between movements and networks and the institutions or the anchor organizations and how they work together.

SPEAKER_00 24:32

Yeah, oh no, I I mean I absolutely agree there. I think there is there is so much more to be done and some absolutely fascinating space in terms of how we kind of marry the the energy and the kind of um the potential of uh movements and more kind of horizontal organizations and some of that you know hard won infrastructure that's been built up in more kind of hierarchical ways. Um have you, you know, have you seen good examples of that happening? Because I'm I'm sort of I'm totally sold on this being an area where there's there's going to be a lot of focus for foundations in in coming years, but in terms of there being kind of examples of good interactions between movements and and sort of um and funders, uh more traditional funders so far, I've probably seen fewer of those. So is it something you've seen at all?

SPEAKER_02 25:22

Not really. No, um no, and I and maybe as well. So I I'm thinking in my head, it's like what's the relationship between some of the movements? So maybe it's like there's different sorts of movements, whether it's the kind of movements of like the edge fund movement working more closely with I don't know, with local government or um Healing Justice London and the the kind of networks that are growing out of their brilliant work, working more alongside the NHS or with the NHS. So I I can see where there's you know, you know, all the transition movement and all the different transition communities. How do they link in with some of the local businesses in place? Um yeah, so that there's kind of maybe that's less institutional power that I was thinking of. Anyway, I'm rambling now, but I I I have I don't see a lot of it because I I think there is something. I I don't think those I don't think those groups are brought together enough. And and I wonder if that's because a lot of the in philanthropy we tend to think of networks and movements as more like, you know, the Joseph Roundtree Charitable Trust just published that whole report on funding movements, or we would think of NEON's work, or we would think of yeah, Edge Fund, or we would think of kind of I guess more the campaigning movements. And that's what I mean when when for me I feel like where are the networks or movements that are creating the alternatives, not just fighting against what currently exists. And I wonder if it's in those alternatives that you would also be able to conceive of ways for institutional philanthropy and other kinds of institutions to work together more.

SPEAKER_00 27:34

Yeah, no, I absolutely kind of demonstrating different ways of doing things as as part of kind of uh you know, as part of something that you're funding, um, a different model, I think. Yeah, I mean that you know it's yeah, a really interesting area. I wonder whether, you know, something we've we've kind of mentioned a couple of times already is um the slight tension that you can you can have, you know, at an individual level, and I know I certainly feel this between the sort of pull towards incrementalism and pragmatism and sort of feeling as though, you know, if you want to get stuff done to some extent, you've got to kind of work with the world as it is, and the pull of radicalism when you kind of see the scale of some of the challenges facing us, and you think, you know, oh my god, we've got to burn it all down and start again. And and I wonder whether actually at an institutional level this is you know a real kind of challenge of that interface between some of these more transformative movements and more traditional institutions and funders, because the the radicals are gonna just feel so frustrated by the interaction with the more traditional institutions, and the traditional institutions are even if they're enthusiastic, maybe quite cautious in their approach and want to sort of soften the edges of the the more radical movements. And so actually managing those relationships takes an enormous amount of work, I would have thought.

SPEAKER_02 28:57

Yeah, and I and I wonder if what what yeah, for me, I think there's there's a couple of other kind of communities that I feel could be plugged into that, which might help, um, which definitely uh comes from where my biases lie. But you know, I do think that there are people who come from maybe more of a design background or an art stroke craft and making background who who actually are used to discovering what to do through actually trying to just do it and and and that kind of learning through doing, learning through making, I think could like diffuse some of that tension between like the the radical and the bureaucratic, for example, because actually by showing what else might be possible, and and the showing is important, not just them, not just like campaigning or telling, but but showing. Um, you know, I think there's real power in in that kind of propositioning work and experimentation work. And I don't think that that is a natural, I don't think that's very naturally in the culture of a lot of philanthropy, or or or in in movements actually, you know, because their energy is so good towards exposing and bringing down and fighting, and I understand why. Um, and then the other community that like the other space that I think could really support that a better ecology to come together around change is rooting the work in that kind of imaginative space as well, where people get that time to step out, to step back, to connect with really what else might be possible to heal, to process, to you know, kind of that healing and imaginative space. Again, I I think is missing from a lot of the work.

SPEAKER_00 31:17

Oh, absolutely. It's it's something I wanted to ask you about because I know you've been doing work um around that and kind of around foresight, but really interesting stuff, particularly on the you know, the role of uh kind of art and fiction in that that process of kind of social imagination, which I think is fascinating. And even the small amount of foresight work that's happening, you know, in the world of philanthropy at the moment or supported by philanthropy, that doesn't seem like an element that is is very kind of present in it. Um, you know, what what you've said a bit there about kind of why it's important, but but you know, maybe you know, why do you feel or what role do you feel that that kind of that that things like fiction and art have to play in helping people to kind of think about the future in a more expansive way? I mean, does it kind of get you outside of your current modes of thinking that are kind of determined by the organization you work in and the sort of you know life that you have and the systems you operate in?

SPEAKER_02 32:16

Um, so I I think that there's a few different things. So I think it's important for people working in philanthropy, so people that are kind of looking out for things to fund or are assessing or reading funding applications, do those people have a really good sense of like what's what's really possible here? Like like that idea of stretch and ambition and real deep transformative change. Like, do are those people making funding decisions really equipped to kind of sense and notice the characteristics of those that kind of work, you know, what to look for and what to fund? So I think it plays a real role there. Um, and in turn, I think it it's the same within communities themselves. So having worked in you know, the largest community funder in the UK, where a lot of the funding strategy was about, you know, communities know best, communities apply for funding, and because communities know best, we're just going to fund what communities say that they want and that they need. And some of that like works, and and that kind of the essence of that is really important, but it doesn't ever account for communities don't know what they don't know, like you don't know, and I don't know what we don't know, and what we can't possibly imagine, we're never going to write into a funding proposal. And I would say, you know, some of the reasons we have the crises, like the climate crisis, is because you know, we there there are things we haven't been able to imagine that could be different. And I feel like that is something that philanthropy has a role in doing. Like we we need to invest in communities having the time and space and skill and rigour to really access like what else might be possible in in this current present and in our collective futures. Otherwise, I think we're, you know, we're there's so much fatalism and overwhelm and many things like that, which I totally understand. I think we're all feeling it on days like today. Um, and if we if we lose sense of something better being possible, and I do think that requires accessing our collective imagination, then how are any of us ever going to kind of get out of bed in the morning or um which is a very privileged thing to say, because actually there's people every day and everything they do having to be imaginative just to survive?

SPEAKER_00 35:12

Yeah, no, I absolutely, and I'm absolutely acknowledge you're right. That is, it's a you know, it's a privilege to be able to kind of think about things in these terms. I I wondered, you know, when you were talking there, whether you know, if this is not happening and if there is not, you know, much, if any, philanthropic funding going towards supporting communities of all different kinds to kind of have that that space and the the knowledge required to think about the future in in different ways. Is that just because it's not something funders are aware they could be funding? Or you know, are there practical barriers to it in terms of you know it being so far upstream that it's difficult to accept to assess you know the impact of it for perhaps according to the kinds of metrics you might be using or over the timescales that you might be using for funding? Does it kind of ask quite a lot of funders in terms of taking a leap of faith and really you know leaning into their ability to take risks? Uh and you know, are are they just not quite doing that at the moment?

SPEAKER_02 36:17

Yeah, I think I think it's it's many things. I I think two probably the main things are you know, there are some funders that if communities are aren't asking for it, then funders don't think it's needed, which I just think is a really flawed take on things. Um and and often that can just be because funders are asking completely the wrong questions as well. Um but but yeah, I also think that it's you know, a lot of the funding that we need in the kind of creating the conditions or in kind of like infrastructures, those things are less resourced because they're not always tangible, they're not always able to be evidenced in the way we like to think of evidence. They are, like you say, they're working much further upstream and they are they might take years to kind of create value or a different kind of value. Um, and and they are asking funders to put their money into something that can't be measured in the same way.

SPEAKER_00 37:31

Yeah, absolutely. And I and when we were um talking before, you sort of alluded to this, but it it relates, you know, this question of just giving communities or having the idea that what you need to do is give communities what they are aware that they need now versus thinking whether actually more broadly need to kind of put them in a position to think more ahead to the future. It it seems relevant to some of the discussion around um power and power dynamics in the sector. And I know we've kind of talked about this before. There's there's a lot of focus, I think quite rightly, on the need to shift power within philanthropy down to the sort of people and communities who are traditionally the recipients of philanthropy and affected by the problems. But I know when we've spoken in the past, you've sort of made I'm not quite a counter case, but but sort of said actually it's not always about shifting power in in a straightforward sense, because sometimes when you shift power, it doesn't get transferred, it gets lost. And actually, what you need sometimes is funders to accept power and kind of wield it on behalf of those communities. Do you think in in that conversation about power we we maybe need to have a bit more nuance? Because I think it is easy for it to get a bit binary.

SPEAKER_02 38:41

Um, I could just say yes and then and then not say anything more because I I mean yes, very resolutely. Um and and we have talked about this before. Um, you know, it's it's one of my it is one of the things I've struggled with the most working in this world and feeling like there are a lot of binaries and not enough plurality in in our thinking and approaches. And there is a very dominant narrative around shifting power. And you know, as a white-skinned uh, you know, woman with privilege, I have to be very careful or and thoughtful. Maybe thoughtful is better than careful in in kind of how I think about this. What I know is that when I chose to work in funding and it was a very conscious choice, it was because I wanted to actually do some work that was about shaping outcomes. It was about trying to actually influence change. And I would hope that I do that with power awareness, and that's a you know, that's a life's work, you know, you're never power aware enough. And that means different things in different contexts. But as a funder, if you have power awareness, for me, it's about how you use that power responsibly and with accountability, but it's not about just getting out of the way or shifting power. Sometimes it is, but it's not only that or always that. And I think that's what I have been very frustrated by in some of the conversations about power. I think that yeah, that that there are just different roles that we that that need to be taken on in the kind of system of change. And sometimes it's better for a funder to to have that power to because also it can it can be used to hold risk and to act as a shield. And like there's there's all kinds of ways in which it can be very useful for what you're all trying to achieve, but it it needs to come with that power awareness. I also think one of the other things I I really struggle with is I think some of the work that's around shifting power for me isn't necessarily fundamentally changing like the system. It's not tackling root causes, it's not transformational change. It's a bit like you might be moving the chess pieces around on a chessboard, you know, you're shifting power from this position to that position, to this person to that person, to this community, to that community, but you're not changing the chessboard. Like that is not fundamentally being changed. I feel like shifting power and co-production come up as the answer to many things and participatory grant making, those three things: co-production, participatory grant making, and shifting power. But I've rarely see seen those approaches changing the chessboard. And I should say it's not like I know how to change the chessboard either, but I think that's the work that really needs to be done.

SPEAKER_00 42:18

Yeah, no, I'm I mean, I I kind of yeah, feel similarly on that. I think, and I and I I totally agree that it's it's a difficult one in that I, you know, I'm very keenly aware of the you know, the extraordinary, you know, if you if you were to look off the markers of privilege, you know, on a on a list, I probably tick off almost all of them. So I'm aware that I'm speaking, apart from the fact that I'm not in control of the money because I don't run a foundation, I'm you know, I very much kind of represent a sort of poster child for for privilege. And so thinking about any of this stuff in an even slightly contradictory way feels uncomfortable, and you have to be sort of keenly aware of that. But I I do think the the conversation needs to be um that bit more born nuanced because as you say, I think there are kind of different ways of of using power, and and sometimes actually I think there is a risk that in some cases it's kind of it it's easy to use the narrative of um shifting power as a way of of kind of avoiding responsibility for using the power that you do have in the right way. It's kind of you know, it kind of you set you sound like you're just giving it away, whereas actually what you need to do is kind of accept the fact that you have it uh and use it more responsibly.

SPEAKER_02 43:33

I yeah, one more thing I've just come in on that. Yeah, that I think that that avoidance is really key, actually, because uh one of the other things, and you know, maybe again controversial, um I've been in many conversations where I feel like there has been like analysis, paralysis, constant navel gazing in discussions about power. And for me, often that has been at the expense or intentionally. To avoid conversations about competence. And yeah, that that's I I feel like we we are. I think we need to be thinking about power all the time in this work, but not as a way of avoiding. Like, are we actually doing the best we can do given the huge crises we face?

SPEAKER_00 44:22

Absolutely. I mean, I find it uh I don't know well what I think about any of these things, but as you can tell, it kind of stuff that that troubles me on a on a sort of daily basis. Um, I I'm aware I'm gonna be in danger of taking up far too too much of your time, Cassie. And this last question of mine um is you know might might end up taking up even more of your time. But I think given all the things we've talked about, about you know, the some of the challenges with institutional philanthropy and you know the challenges with kind of finding the right ways of pursuing, you know, truly kind of transformational change. I I was gonna ask you a question that that I sometimes pose to myself to try and tease out what I actually think about some of these things, which is just so assume that you had, you know, a large lump sum of money arrived from somewhere, let's say a kind of ethically okay source just for the sake of argument, but you you were in a position to set up your own foundation from scratch now. What would it look like? Like what would be the choices you would make in terms of some of these questions about things like timescale and grant making approach and and kind of how you use your endowment and that sort of thing?

SPEAKER_02 45:28

Um not such a big question. And I'll try and I mean I I I guess one of the other things is I feel like in some ways I'm I I have this question at the moment with a couple of the the new bits of work I'm doing where there is a bit of a blank sheet of paper. And it is amazing how quickly you can just default back to what you think it should look like. I mean, my first question would be like, do we actually need a new foundation?

SPEAKER_00 45:56

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_02 45:57

Um, you know, so I would question that anyway.

SPEAKER_00 46:00

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 46:01

Um I would definitely, if for some reason like the money came with a condition that you have to set up a new foundation, then I would kind of want to do that really explicitly in relation with some others. So as long as that didn't like curtail what became possible, I just think that idea of at every point in the design of a new foundation, you're designing from a place of interdependence in an ecosystem, like you are in an ecology, um, and you're you don't make any choices that aren't based from that position. So what your role should be, what what kind of like what kind of level of risk, what type of money who you should partner with is all based on that fact that you're not ever operating in isolation, and that should like define the design. Um I guess I feel like I would want to be funding things that I don't think get enough funding, and that would be things like the hidden wiring, like tackling, you know, the the things that really haven't been dealt with that are like under the radar or literally, you know, the the kind of layers that sit underneath all these nice community initiatives, but if you're not addressing the laws or the regulation or like the different ways of thinking about value, then why would you be funding the other stuff anyway? So there's something about funding for the hidden wiring and things around like different kinds of infrastructures that are needed and some of the conditions that we've talked about. Um so so I definitely want to fund things that don't look like ever look like projects um or ever like default to like thematic areas. None of those things. Um, but I guess a lot of it would also be the how. So one of the things I've been looking at with one of the new pieces of work I'm doing is around how would you fund things in a way that money operates a bit like mycelium, so that the grant giving um was regenerative and was based on the other principles of mycelium. So I think there's lots to be learned from nature and how nature works as an ecology and how to transfer that into principles and practices around philanthropy. Um and the last thing I there's there's there'll be loads of things I've forgotten, and I'll be going afterwards, like, oh, I didn't say that, and I didn't do it. But I guess the other thing is I definitely have it as time bound, you know, like why does it need to exist for any longer than I don't know, five years, three years, move the money pretty quickly, move it through partners, move it through having some funds that are totally distributed by young people. Um, yeah, all of those kind of things.

SPEAKER_00 49:15

Yeah, it's fascinating. And I, you know, I definitely agree. There's there's very few things we can't learn from fungi. So I think that mycelia uh approach is fascinating. Um, I I find that whole question, I mean, I I as I was listening to you go through it, I was sort of nodding and mmmming, but then it kind of made me feel, you know, again when I think about it myself, I don't I I find it such a it's an interesting question to pose, but then really difficult one to answer because I often start from thinking, well, as you say, you know, should I even set anything up in the first place or would be better off just giving the money, all the money to one organization or just, you know, a whole load of grants in one go with no structure? If you do set up a structure, I mean, I would agree definitely that it should be time limited, but then what's my involvement in it? You know, do I do I want to devolve all of the power over decision making to someone else or to do it in partnership? You know, if so, again, going back to what we were saying before, you know, in doing that, am I am I being admirably humble or am I actually just kind of you know devolving responsibility for things that I should be accepting responsibility? And it's kind of it's it's a very, you know, it's a very difficult question. But I think for anyone who is a philanthropoid or wants to sort of have opinions on institutional philanthropy, it's a really good exercise to go through because actually it sort of forces you to say, okay, then go on, what would you do? Um, and often it makes you realise how difficult the answers are.

SPEAKER_02 50:35

Yeah. And what one other one other thing I didn't say, but it's probably like the most obvious thing that I would say is like that fund for me should be very much focused on the speculative, like funding speculative work, because I do think for me at the moment in the UK funding landscape, there's obviously uh some there's you know, there's obviously exceptions, but there is very little philanthropic money at the moment that is really being used for speculative and experimental work.

SPEAKER_00 51:08

Yeah, no, I I totally agree. And I think, I mean, that whole there's a whole other conversation to be had about kind of you know the the risk uh risk and and the kind of role of uh particularly sort of foundation philanthropy and in allowing that to happen. But um, yeah, it certainly feels like there's despite the narrative about that being one of the things that legitimizes institutional philanthropy, its ability to take risks. I often feel the gap between that rhetoric and the reality of what gets funded by most institutional philanthropy is pretty big. Um, so yeah, no, I I totally agree.

SPEAKER_02 51:43

I wonder too, though, if that's as much about you know, there might be some philanthropy that like I can't you call it foundation philanthropy that thinks it is taking risk. But again, for me, that's because we don't have anywhere near enough spaces and conversations where we really talk about what good looks like. And, you know, if if we were to say to people, are you really funding that kind of transition from the second to third horizon, for example, or that more speculative work of the third horizon, there might be a bunch of funders that think that is what they're doing. But actually, you know, because I have been in rooms where, you know, where I've previously worked, where there's been talk of like, well, we're funding systems change. This is systems change funding. But then when you bring an analysis to that work and you're you really look at like, is it? It it's often not. And again, I say that as someone that doesn't know how to do systems change work, you know, that's big, deep, long work. But often you can see when something isn't that. And I so yeah, I I think that it's it's there's a gap between rhetoric and action, but I also think that's because there's actually huge gaps in perception and understanding.

SPEAKER_00 53:05

Yeah, I think that's that's absolutely right. I think again, with things like risk, we use it as if it's a kind of clearly defined term that everybody agrees on, but actually it's remarkably subjective in terms of how people interpret it. So um, well, I won't take up any more of your time. It just remains to say it's been an absolute pleasure um chatting. Um, before I I let you go finally, is there anything that you've got coming up that you want to flag up or kind of divert people's attention to? I'll obviously put kind of links in the show notes to places where they can get more information on the stuff we've been talking about. But if there's anything particular you want to plug.

SPEAKER_02 53:38

I don't think so. I think um I think I'd just say I am sorry if I sound like a broken record. We we were saying at the beginning before we started, I was like, oh, I don't know if I have anything new to say these days. I feel like I've been saying the same thing and I'm I'm almost a bit tired of myself. But um yeah, I I suppose I would just put a call out for, you know, anyone that anyone working in funding and philanthropy that wants to connect around that kind of really speculative experimental work and and what that looks like and how you fund it, or how you cultivate the conditions for more people to be resourced to even get to that place. Um, I would love to talk to them.

SPEAKER_00 54:32

Yeah, absolutely. And you know, as long as they're willing to CC me and on that conversation, I would I would second that call. So um great. Thanks ever so much, Cassie. Um see you soon. Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to you, Cassie, for coming on the podcast. Um, as ever, I'll put some links in the show notes to places where you can find out more about Cassie's work and some of the things that she's written. Uh, and I'll put some things that I've written that are relevant as well if you want to read those. Um, if you want to uh find out more uh about the podcast and find back episodes, um you can find those at philanthropisms.com where you can also find an email address to get in touch with the show. Uh if you've got any ideas for people I could interview or topics that we could talk about. Um if you want to follow me on social media, you can do that at Rodri underscore h underscore Davis or at Philiteracy if you want stuff that's more kind of about history. Uh, and I'll also put links to where you can find Cassie on social media as well, and both of us on Medium if you want sort of more long form blogs, uh blogs even. Uh and other than that, it just remains to say uh like the podcast, subscribe, do tell anybody that you think might get something out of listening to it about it, and I'll see you next time. Bye.