SPEAKER_00 0:37

Hello, you're listening to the Philanthropisms Podcast. This is the podcast where we try to put philanthropy in context.

SPEAKER_01 0:45

I'm your host, as ever, Rod Davis, and we're back after a bit of a break over the summer, a well-earned break, I think, certainly from my point of view. And I guess you could call this season two. And we're returning with a bang. So we have an interview this week, and it is with Derek Bardwell. Now Derek is the CEO of Ten Years Time, which is a philanthropy consultancy based here in the UK. But he's also, as you'll hear early on in the interview, the author of a new book that's just come out called Giving Back How to Do Goods Better, which is a fascinating look at sort of Derek's experience in philanthropy and what it's sort of told him and the insights it's given him about how he thinks philanthropy needs to improve and get better and change for the future, particularly if it's going to sort of serve the needs of justice and of marginalized communities better. So we had a great wide-ranging conversation. We talked quite a lot about the sort of what the book's about and what that central idea of trying to sort of shift from generosity to justice means in Derek's view. We talked quite a lot about the problematic sometimes relationship between philanthropy and racial injustice and sort of how philanthropy might need to reinvent itself in order to be a tool for furthering racial justice. We talked a bit about what some of this meant in terms of the actual practices of foundations and grant makers when it comes to making core cost grants or whether they fund over the sort of shorter term and longer term. We talked quite a bit about whether the charity sector and philanthropic funders need to be more comfortable with funding things that are maybe these days seen as a bit too political if we're to genuinely drive the sort of change at a structural level that's required. And we talked quite a bit about whether how we should sort of view philanthropy and whether we should be optimistic about philanthropy's ability to change and whether we should take a positive view of philanthropy in the round as something that can be a force for driving society forward in positive ways and kind of what we need to do in order to achieve that. So without further ado, let's go into the interview. I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping and tidying up. Okay, great. So I'm here with Derek Barderwell. Hi, Derek. Hey, uh Rodri, how are you? I'm really good, thanks. And yeah, great to have a chance to chat to you on the podcast. We were saying just before we we started recording, it's really weird in a way that we I don't think we've met properly before, even though we very much move in the same circles and know lots of the same people. So it's it's really great to have a chance to talk. Um and for anyone who doesn't know, Derek is the CEO of Ten Years Time Limited, and most crucially for uh the purposes of this episode, the author of a new book that's just come out called Giving Back How to Do Goods Better, um, which I've been lucky enough to read an advanced copy of and thoroughly enjoyed. So I'll put links in the show notes to places where everyone can find that. Um so I guess the best place to start, Derek, is just to ask you, you know, what was it that led you to to write this book? What's it about? What do you hope people reading get from it?

SPEAKER_02 4:03

Um well first thanks for for having me on the the show. And um, yeah, have been a long admirer of your work. And you you are uh quoted heavily in in the book as well. So um really nice to be here. Um I guess part of it was I guess the gift and the curse of being in philanthropy. One that you see, um experience um some incredible work. Um, you know, I've worked in philanthropy, uh, and I mean as uh working in trusts and foundations and in the funding world since 2009, and I've been privileged to uh see some incredible uh pieces of work um that have blown my mind. Um the frustration comes from not seeing those works or those pieces of work, the really future thinking pieces uh funded sufficiently. And so part of um writing the book was to you know give respect, props, flowers to all of these amazing organizations doing wonderful things that perhaps we wouldn't see, um, but at the same time to really illustrate some of the ills of the philanthropic world and put some ideas out there in terms of what we can do to really change that.

SPEAKER_01 5:22

Yeah, absolutely. And you you you know you kind of highlight many of the challenges with with philanthropy that you found through your work over the years. But also, I think you know, one of the things that's good about the book, it's very much focused on what we can actually do about them. Um I guess one of the things I wanted to ask you is as a sort of general question as well, given that I think you're in a similar position to me and being, you know, quite happy and willing to embrace criticism and critique of philanthropy because I think it's necessary, but not going to the other extreme of just sort of washing your hands of the whole thing and saying, well, let's just not bother. You know, in in terms of that, you know, do you remain optimistic about the potential for philanthropy when done well or in the right way to be a force for good in society? Do you think it's something that we should put time and effort into trying to improve?

SPEAKER_02 6:10

Yeah, absolutely. I wouldn't be like doing this work, I wouldn't have written the book if I didn't see the potential for that. The the amazing thing about philanthropy is it has obviously it has money, you know, um, but it also has high levels of independence that enables it to make choices about what it would like to do. So, you know, often when you talk about other institutions, be it the health service, be it uh the education, you know, and you're talking about real reform. When I say reform, I'm talking about really revolutionizing those particular institutions. There's it's so thick with regulation, with politics, and other things that would prevent it from really being able to significantly change quickly. When I look at philanthropy, I I think that it's still um, and I mean this in the greatest respect, immature. Um, it still um is relatively new. I, you know, and when I say new, I mean in terms of how it the money is administered and what we do within it is still relatively new. Um and I think it offers the possibility of really being able to uh do good in a really profound and different way. But for that to happen, um, I think there are some really major steps that it needs to take. And as I said, you can't really hide behind things like regulation or hide behind other things that the education system or health can hide behind. This is around people and people's choices to be able to make some of those changes. So I think for me, when I was writing the book, it was very much around how do you reimagine philanthropy through this reparative lens, you know, because I do believe that obviously philanthropic capital is, you know, part of our uh extractive economy that has exploited and extracted from the global south and from communities of color historically. Um, you have, in terms of the freedom that's offered uh in philanthropy, the opportunity to really repair some of those harms and get significant amounts of money and resources to those that have been most affected by uh this extractive economy. So the ability for philanthropy to facilitate a transfer of wealth and resources to those on the forefront of harm, I think is significant. And that's one of the things that I'm really calling for in terms of the book is to really for philanthropy as an institution to really model some quite significant change and therefore really catalyse uh a rebalancing of power, but also catalyse a change in our systems that doesn't leave um minoritised communities behind.

SPEAKER_01 9:04

Absolutely, yeah. And and I guess one of the challenges there, I mean, I think there's a lot to pick up on in what you've said, is it's often kind of said that the part of the difficulty is that philanthropy, certainly understood as giving by those who have kind of amassed significant resources in society, to some extent is a reflection of the inequalities and the structural uh flaws in society as it stands at the moment. So whether it can ever genuinely be used as a tool to fundamentally change those systems and structures, is is a kind of live question. For you, do you do you think there is a way of using philanthropy to go beyond just kind of working within existing systems and you know and applying sticking plasters to problems and to focus instead on actually kind of fundamentally changing the system in which wealth's been created in the first place?

SPEAKER_02 9:55

Yeah, and so I think you know, you've hit the nail on the head. Philanthropy is not going to be the thing that saves us. And and what you've pointed out there is it's part of our system in which it reinforces a lot of the disparities that we see in society today. So if you look at some of the statistics that have come out, um, for example, in UK philanthropy, you know, we know that um only around 5% of funding goes to racially minoritized led groups in this country, and only 9% of that goes towards campaigning. Um, we know from ACF's reports um from 2018 that 99% of foundation boards are white, and I think two-thirds are men. Um we know that most of the environment funding um goes to white men, and we know that there's only a small amount of charities, maybe 100, that probably commands two-thirds of the income um that comes out in the UK. So, and we also know that you know the charitable trusts and foundations give away less than 5% of their wealth. So, what you have is in so many ways, philanthropy, um, you know, one, it's been gentrified and it reinforces a lot of these disparities, it still tends to fund um, as statistics bear out, um, sticky plaster solutions services over um systems. You know, recent reports have also said that, you know, um uh the leadership, um, particularly in large charities and philanthropic organizations, still do not feel equipped to tackle some of these major issues. So it reinforces it. Um, but what we're saying here, and what I'm saying within the book, is that it has the freedom, um, particularly if you look at the last two and a half years of COVID and George Floyd, where we really have seen a significant shift in public perception around things like um racial injustice, um around who and what we are to each other as neighbors, um right through to climate justice and climate change, that it has an opportunity to really um catalyze change. But for that to happen, it has to redefine its role. And when I say redefining its role, it means its lens moving from one of growth in terms of its investments to one of growing power or supporting the growth of community power. Um, it means around moving away from just funding services to funding systemic change. You know, it's talking about making um philanthropy less of an institutional practice that weaponizes bureaucracy to um more of a cultural practice where some of that money gets into communities. Now, is philanthropy going to do that as a whole? Probably not, but I do think that um we have seen some movement in some of the foundations and some high net worth individuals, and particularly with the great wealth transfer and a younger generation of wealth holders thinking very differently about these things, that lends itself to giving, looking fundamentally different, and where, as I said, they're moving away from growing their own wealth and preserving their wealth towards growing some of that community power. So I hold faith that some of that will um change. And if that change and more resources goes into communities, then people power can have a huge level of change in terms of our systems and the things that we sometimes might feel in our lives are quite insurmountable.

SPEAKER_01 13:49

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and just picking up on what you were saying there, because it goes to something I've spoken to a few people about on the podcast and elsewhere. This this sense that there are some issues these days. I mean, certainly racial justice, I would say, is one, climate justice, and and perhaps kind of inequality is another, that that in in a way are so big and cross-cutting that we part of the challenge is that within the world of philanthropy, we need to move beyond seeing them as cause areas in some sense, and therefore things that philanthropic funders might or might not choose to work on, to issues that cut across all funders and not just their their grant-making uh operations, but also you know how they invest their money, um, what their staffing practices look like and all these sorts of things. When it comes to racial justice in particular, I just wanted to get a sense from you of what you think this means and where where the focus is is most usefully put. I mean, is it that the the philanthropy world and the grant making world itself needs to address its own challenges in terms of lack of diversity? Is it that that more money needs to be put from those grant makers into the hands of leaders from within marginalized communities? Um, you know, is it about acknowledging some of the challenges to do where their assets have come from in in the first place and the ways in which those have been attractive? Or, you know, probably is it all of these things and which of them do you think you know we need to tackle first?

SPEAKER_02 15:16

Well, I I think you know, uh they definitely need to interrogate their wealth and their approach to and their concept of capital, because if you don't do that um and if you don't recognize the economy that we exist in and how you know trillions of dollars continue to be plundered from um the global south um continually, and what role um philanthropic capital plays in that, then it's unlikely that you're going to be able to do anything revolutionary in terms of reform and tackling um racial um inequality moving forward. So you definitely need to interrogate wealth. I think um they will need to challenge their truths. And I think this is the one of the sticky points always in philanthropy is that you know um you're doing good. You know, you sit on a board and you hear about these good causes, and essentially you go to your dinner party at the end of the day and you say, This is what I'm contributing to the world. Um, now for me, one of the issues here for me is that if, for example, your investments are not mission aligned, if they're not aligned to your charitable giving and you're only giving away four or five percent of your wealth, yet 95% of your investments that maintains and grows your wealth happens to be still extractive, still harmful to different communities, harmful to the climate, to nature, then ultimately you are doing more uh bad than you are doing good. So you have to challenge your truths. Um, and when you look at the lack of diversity that exists on foundation boards, again, um you are not looking at a raft of people on foundation boards that really understand the issues um that are faced by people in communities. And often if they don't understand it, then they have a tendency not to trust it. So if they're not challenging their truths, often what the case will be is that they will just end up funding things that they feel is worthy, as opposed to the things that getting money to where it really needs to go to. And then I think the third bit, and and the bit that I really encourage is that you know, you really need to invest in the innovation and uh imagination of, you know, grassroots communities of racially and other minoritized communities, you know, because those communities haven't been given, they've been historically underinvested in. Um uh so it's not just the extractiveness of the investments. We're also talking about um the fact that they have been historically underinvested in and they haven't had the level of infrastructural support from um trusts and foundations they should have done historically. Um, so you need to fund that infrastructure, but also the imagination and ideas um that comes from those communities. I think that's uh essential. Um I also just think that, you know, look, at the end of the day, I still don't see where the barriers will be to um a charitable trust or foundation releasing more of their um endowment. Um and if they wanted to tackle racial justice, just imagine if the top 10 or 20 funders, or even five of them, released one or two percent of their um endowments towards a commitment to racial justice for the next 20 years. So it wouldn't go as far as I would want them to go in terms of really interrogating everything in their organizations from their operations to their investments. But just say, for instance, they were to take one or two percent and they're releasing several million pounds a year over 20 years to fund a number of organizations tackling racial injustice. That to me is the start of an amazing commitment. And I don't see the barriers towards being able to do that. And when you look at uh institutes, sorry, organizations like Project Tallowa, uh the Beobab Foundation, the Phoenix Way Partnership who are distributing and redistributing funds towards um their communities. When you look at organizations like IMCAN, Healing Justice London, Center for Knowledge Equity, Project 507, Power the Fight, Black Thrive, Yard Art House, there are tons of really good organisations in which this money could one be invested in, but also to give them the level of stability to be able to take away the competition, but also to enable them to build the type of infrastructure that has been denied to our communities historically through this type of funding. So for me, um I think it can be done. And I think for me as well, I also believe that you know you this could be the the the what if or if only generation of charitable trusts and foundations, because we've just had the biggest public health crisis since World War II in terms of COVID, and we're still having this conversation about um uh about funders being reluctant to release any more of their endowments. You know, um, I think when we look back at this time, if these funders do not do anything um radical in the next couple of years in response to the conditions that we exist in at this time, uh they will be looked upon very, very badly. They will be looked upon as morally and socially unacceptable, given that they have a mission to be able to um to tackle these entrenched inequalities, but still have um only decided to keep within a four or five percent limit with their funding.

SPEAKER_01 21:15

Yeah, I absolutely. I mean, I think I find it difficult in many ways to uh to understand some of the reluctance um around putting more uh endowed resources, certainly towards mission-aligned uh investment. I guess I'm I guess the interesting question is it it goes maybe a bit further towards a more radical view that organizations shouldn't just dip in, you know, uh funders shouldn't just dip into those endowments, but actively shift towards a goal of spending them down entirely over a over a sort of limited lifespan, which there seemed to be more enthusiasm for, understandably, during the the pandemic, and lots of people sort of taking the urgency s of that early stage of the pandemic as a way of making this argument. It seemed then there was a bit of a pushback from funders saying, but actually, in A part of the role of philanthropy is to stick around for the longer term and to sort of take a longer term view of issues. What what do you kind of make of that tension? Because it does feel as though it's one of those issues in philanthropy that that definitely isn't as clear-cut as it's sometimes uh presented, and that there is a trade-off to be made sometimes between urgency and taking a longer term view.

SPEAKER_02 22:21

Yeah, so when I speak of uh charitable trusts and foundations releasing some of their endowment, for me that's not the end goal. That's not the final thing. I'm just talking about that as one of the first things that they can do. You know, one of the first things that they can do is release an extra one or two percent. Look, let's have a look next year when ACF releases its giving trends, I think it's called giving trends, um, and we look at what some of those charitable trusts have earned or grown since COVID and see if they have grown. Now, if they have grown and they've got extra money, what prevents them from giving away that excess wealth in their giving? I don't know what the answer is, but that's the question that I would ask. Is that if during this monumental crisis over the last two to three years your endowment has grown by 50 or 60 million in that time, what prevents you from spending that 56 50 or 60 million towards giving? Um, what is the point of you having that excess wealth? Um, what does that mean to your mission as an organization? Can you ethically say your mission aligned when you are still growing during the worst public health crisis since World War II? Um, these are the questions that I ask in terms of before I even get to that question of spending down, which we would all love, you know, in an ideal world, in a just world, for philanthropy as an institution not to exist, for this not to exist, and for all of that money to be recirculated reparatively into communities where that money can be more regenerative and more community-owned. We would love that to be the end goal. But in the meantime, my question would be how much is enough? How much money in terms of growing your endowment is enough if you are not giving away some of that excess wealth? That that's what I always come back to. And that for me is where I come back to when we look at this time and we look at the behaviors of this level of growth during this time, it will be deemed as being in the way that we're looking at these statues at the moment and wanting to pull them down, which is to say the goodness of the people that have been put on these statues is more of a facade masking lots of really poor things that they've done. And I think when you look at this from a moral, ethical, and and social perspective, it will be looked upon as being really unacceptable in years to come that your endowment could have grown by 50, 60 million, and you've continued to give away four or five percent of your wealth during that particular period.

SPEAKER_01 25:41

Yeah, no, I absolutely I think that's that's right, having uh one eye on how you know uh people looking at this from the future might view uh the current situation is always a a good yardstick. And I think that that is true. I think the the question of did you do enough at the time and on what basis were you holding back those resources, you know, what were you waiting for? I think is important. Because I think that the maintenance of assets can just become an it's very easy for it to become an end in itself and to lose sight of the fact that those assets are supposedly one would assume there to achieve social good. Uh, and then if if the maintenance of them becomes an end in itself, that that's kind of undermining that that broader goal. Um I just want just wanted to circle back actually just to pick up on something uh about um what we were talking about um a minute ago, about the the question of whether uh what funders can do to kind of apply um a lens of of racial justice across potentially all of their work. I guess one of the things I was I was really interested in, um I spoke to Edgar Villanueva last year on on the podcast about his work in terms of um decolonizing philanthropy. And one of the the things that that he's said, which is a point I know plenty of other people have made, is you know when you're accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression. Um and I wondered what your your sort of take is on the scale of the challenge when it comes to getting those who have benefited from the current system to accept the need to decolonize or to shift power, when that might actually require them to lose some of that power or to give it away or to sort of find themselves in a less comfortable position. Is there a challenge in terms of people you know being very positive in a rhetorical sense about doing some of this stuff, but then actually getting quite defensive when push comes to shove and they're required to give away power? And how do you help people to overcome some of that defensiveness?

SPEAKER_02 27:40

Yeah, I mean, people don't want to give up power unwillingly. Um so there is definitely an element of this, and I and I guess when I was writing giving back, I was really careful not to be writing strictly towards the philanthropic institution, but towards the general public, because ultimately if they have a greater awareness, if they change their giving, for example, or if they have a greater awareness of philanthropy as an institution, then actually the power of people and the pressure that they will put on um the system, as it were, will be the catalyst to change. Um, so we've got, you know, uh 10 years' time, we we we we work with philanthropists, high net worth individuals, foundations to repair these harmful systems and to rebalance power. Um, you know, we work with them to resource racial and economic justice. We do that work. Um, and it's really difficult and it's really hard to get people to a place where they're not so defensive and where they are starting to meet communities where they are, as opposed to where their privilege, their own privilege lies. But ultimately, um on a mass scale, there is not a mass amount of people that are willing to give up or rebalance or shift power. Um, so ultimately it will come down to you know public will and public being able to put pressure on the institution to be able to change some of that. Um, and and I wholly believe that when you look at um the UK, particularly after the lynching of George Floyd in 2020, it was the campaigning of um the Ubele Initiative, um Charity So White, and others that really sort of catalyzed change among funders. Um now, did they go far enough? No, they didn't go far enough, but they had to listen because of the way that the likes of Ubele and Charity So White were able to really mobilize the masses in that way. I think given what's happened in philanthropy, particularly over the last four or five years, um, you mentioned um Edgar's book, Decolonizing Um Wealth. You know, um we've had tons of other books that have come out that have been uh critical of the uh philanthropic sector. There is greater awareness of um this particular world. Certainly when I came into it in 2009, it was still a bit of a quiet, mythical existence. It's now a lot more mainstream. And I think now, particularly with new wealth holders really coming to the forefront and talking about, you know, um more tax justice, tax equity, um, talking about giving their money away very differently, you know, Mackenzie Scott giving away loads of money, it's now more in the mainstream, more so than it has been at any point that I've been involved in it. And for me, that's a good thing because that starts to create a level of accountability to communities that really hasn't been there historically.

SPEAKER_01 30:56

Yeah, absolutely. And and one of the things um you mentioned there about the work of organizations like the Bel A Initiative and sort of movements almost that have emerged within the charity sector, like like Charity So White, is that they've they've almost sort of sidestepped a lot of the traditional power structures within the sector and had huge influence as a result, which I guess goes to a question I really wanted to ask you. There's quite a lot of um mention in the book of the fact that there are now the seemingly these kind of alternative models to a lot of what we would traditionally think of as um uh as kind of philanthropy as a way of funding registered charities or non-profits, which is to say there are these kind of new social movements and grassroots organizations emerging, um, which is not in itself an entirely new thing, but it seems to be happening at a kind of pace and scale we've never seen before in the shape of things like Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion. For you, what what do you think it is that is potentially kind of appealing to people more about these things, perhaps, than giving to straightforward traditional charities? Do you do you think it's that there's a sense of frustration that some traditional organizations just haven't really had the kind of impact on the issues that they're supposed to be addressing that that they promised? Or is there a sense in which the way that they talk about what they do when they interact with people has become too institutionalized and too technocratic, and that people are looking for a different way of addressing the same problems?

SPEAKER_02 32:27

Yeah, well, I think one, you know, I think organizations like Black Lives Matter, UK, Extinction Rebellion, Ubele, Charity Saw White, one, I think they speak to the urgency of the situation, and I think that is so so important. Um, is that if you have a charitable organization that really speaks just jargon language, just some technocratic language that doesn't make sense to people, then you will get quickly disillusioned with it. So I think um part of the appeal of these organizations is that one, um, I can't really speak about Extinction Um Rebellion, but when you speak about some of the other organizations I've mentioned, like Ubele, that they are part and embedded in their communities and they are able to, you know, be voices and legitimate and authentic voices for their community. But also I think it's really interesting that you look at how though they started, they none of them started through this charitable means, you know, and often it's the case that you will find uh uh really sort of um you know active voices um in communities who are trying to resource the work that they do. And uh traditionally, you know, the only route might have been to become a charity. And then once you become a charity, you know, suddenly, you know, these innovators and activists become operators and HR managers. And I'm not knocking them, you know, HR managers, I'm just saying that their role as voices suddenly becomes compromised because they get into that bureaucratic role of having to raise money, having to manage teams instead of managing mission and managing campaigns. So I think it's interesting that the likes of charities so white and ubele, for example, are not charities, they are differently structured organizations. Sisters Uncut, who again, amazing activist organization, and again, to my knowledge, are not a charity but exist outside. It gives them more freedom in terms of their voice, in terms of their political voice, um, which I think is important and something that you can't do as a charity. But also importantly, they are mission-driven um institutions, collectives, movements, organizations. That's what they are. They serve that um more so than they do serving the reporting requirements of a stack of funders. And I think that we will increasingly see. Um, but I also just wanted to touch upon another point, which is um, you know, that there is also the perception of uh philanthropy and charity in the media, um, which is often just really, just really negative. Um, and again, I think the reason why I wrote a book that was emphasizing the good stuff. And when I say the good stuff, the good activist innovation stuff that's happening was largely just to really turn this perception on on um on its head that everything in charity is large charities that are heavily bureaucratic with you know tons of safeguarding issues. And that's not to deny that there aren't some issues around safeguarding and financial misappropriation, but you're still really talking about the perception of charity being um and philanthropy being these really super huge, hefty organizations that perhaps are a bit divorced from you know the general public. And what you tend to ignore are tons of unbelievable organizations that are probably just sitting around the corner from you, but because they don't have a shop or they can't afford to put an advert out, or you can't donate money to them through you know a mobile app or your text messaging, um, that we ignore them. And it's like your small bookshop. These are the gems that exist around. And again, for me, if as a first step, the one thing that we can do is ensure that those small independent bookshop equivalents are being resourced and supported and getting the opportunities to get their ideas out to the world. Um, that for me is a good first step and a really, really good use of charitable trust funding.

SPEAKER_01 36:57

Yeah, and I'm absolutely absolutely agree. And I think it it always you know seems to me that one of the ongoing challenges in the sector is is just I mean, simply to have I mean, data is too fancy term in a way, it's just information on what is out there so that people know and don't have to rely on having pre-existing contacts or being in the right networks. Because I I know when I talk to journalists or anybody else who isn't you know from the sector and doesn't normally move in philanthropy circles and they they come into it, they're always constantly amazed by how much we don't know, things that they assume we would just know because you know, why wouldn't you? People don't know. Um, and and I think you know, so many decisions in philanthropy are still just taken on the basis of, I mean, you know, basically, yeah, people just happen to happening to have had a conversation with with someone else about something, and that ends up with them being put in contact, and that ends up being uh something that drives funding, which can be fine and can unearth things that people would otherwise never have come across, but but it really feels like that needs to be matched up also with a more systematic way of helping people to find the organizations operating under the radar that might appeal to them and that they might want to give a hundred pounds to or 10,000 pounds to. Um, and yeah, there's still an enormous amount of work to be done there, I think. Absolutely.

SPEAKER_02 38:17

And I I you know, I would love for them to really champion um, or for the media uh to really champion, as I said, those small uh bookshop equivalents you have in the charitable sector that are really doing work um that doesn't leave people behind. And I think that is really key to me is that those precious organizations that in the way they do things, it's not a one-size-fits-all, it is systemic, it is aiming to change um, you know, policy, behaviors, practices on the fundamental level, but the way that they do things does not fundamentally leave people behind in a way that so many of our public services do. I think that's really um um important. But again, the general narrative around charity people, you know, and I've had this before when I've spoken to people about writing articles and said, you know, I want to write an article about this amazing organization doing this work and what it means. And it's like, yeah, but we really want you to write something that's a bit more negative than that. And I'm I'm like, no, because there's enough good stuff that is out there, and as critical as I am of the sector, and I will continue to be critical, it's also with a view that I know I absolutely know that there is a stack of amazing stuff that's out there, and I also know that there's millions and millions of pounds that could be going towards resourcing that amazing work.

SPEAKER_01 39:46

Yeah, absolutely. I'm I'm aware I'm gonna be in danger of taking up altogether too much of your time, Derek. And there are there's a couple of other things I'd really like to ask you. Um, one of them was just to pick on something we were saying there when we're talking about social movements. You mentioned the that whole question of uh voice and the importance of people speaking up on behalf of their communities, and that sometimes then getting compromised when they become uh a part of the more sort of formalized charity sector. Is is part of that also the um the the uh the kind of restrictions that are placed on organisations when they become charities, either by the law or by the charity commission and by regulation, or just by kind of self-censorship, about getting involved in issues that are sort of perceived as being political in in some sense. And I know in the book you kind of do talk about politics and you're willing to kind of make criticisms of you know political figures. Um, and one of the things I found working in policy in the sector for a long time is, you know, in a sense, everybody does become very guarded. And even when you're sort of you think actually, this seems like a point at which we could justifiably criticize this politician or this party, people do still shy away from it because it's become so indoctrinated in the idea that that will get you into trouble that that you just sort of don't. Um, I wonder whether you think, you know, the the charity sector kind of has a bit of a problem in this regard and that actually it's it's maybe underplaying its potential because it's become too timid about speaking up on some of these issues.

SPEAKER_02 41:18

Yeah, well, you know, if you become a charity, then it will restrict your political voice. And if you happen to be an organization, and we saw that with the Runny Me Trust, we saw it with the National Trust, that pops their head up uh uh above the water and is doing unbelievably good stuff and progressive stuff, then the potential for you to get hit with a either really heavy, bad headlines from the press, or having a bunch of uh politicians start to criticize your work or wanting to take away your charitable status, you know, that's a live issue. And if you are if you're a large organization turning over 100 million, then you can potentially absorb losing a few contracts, or you can, I don't know, sack a few trustees and stuff and absorb it and downsize but continue on. Um, if you're a smaller charity or organization and you get that level of um criticism, I don't know how you survive that. So, you know, the the issue is that you know it's hard to pop your head above the water when you exist in something that is um saying that you can't be political. And of course it's ridiculous because uh, you know, half the, you know, if you look at um philanthropy, you know, um the decisions that are made are very political. You know, they might they're political because the people making those decisions are actively saying we're not going to fund, I don't know, land reparations, for example, we're not going to fund tax justice or tax equity, um, we're not going to fund work that might scrutinize the media, right? They are fundamentally making political decisions to protect their interests. Um, there's been many occasions where I've had funding bids have come into me and I've tried to advocate for them and they've been turned down. And I've said, you know, let's look at the whole of our portfolio, let's look at 95% of our portfolio and tell me that this piece of work is not as good as that 95%. This is better than the other 95%, but because we've got these slightly arbitrary funding rules that have been put in, or because we have uh certain members of the board that think in a particular way where they don't want this type of work funded, um, it means that it doesn't get through. That's a political decision. Decision. And again, when I think back to working in philanthropic organizations and the amount of stuff that from participatory grant making bids that were turned down 10 years ago to stuff on land reparations that was turned down, stuff tackling endemic racism. Even then for me, 10-year grant cycles wasn't enough because we know social change takes longer than that. And all of these things, you know, 10 years ago were turned down, wouldn't even see the light of day. And then, you know, you'd have conversations with people about climate change 10 years ago, and they would deny that it really exists. And what happens is now you get to 2022, and now it's like, oh, we're talking about participatory grant making and oh, climate change is a real thing. What we don't understand is the damage that's done by people fundamentally not making those decisions at the time, waiting 10 years to really tackle things like climate justice, waiting 10 years to really, or wait until George Floyd gets lynched before we start talking about racism. That is the problem. And as I said, I've only been in this since 2009. There's probably people that have been in it years ago that can point to making a case for these things in, I don't know, 2005, 19, 98. But the point is the fact that these decisions are not being made in real time and they are often either arbitrary or political decisions being made by those in power means that fundamentally philanthropy as an institution is not as effective as it should be. And what we don't have is any layer of accountability for decisions that have not been made by charitable trusts historically. And I think that part of it is the bit that really hurts, and the bit which says if you don't rebalance power, then we're still going to be in that situation where decisions that are being made now probably are not the decisions that really should be made at this particular time. And that's why I say, as I said, absolutely, we will look back on this time and we will say it was morally and ethically unacceptable to be carrying on and funding in the way that we are at this particular point.

SPEAKER_01 46:25

Yeah, absolutely. Um, and uh just finally before I let you go, because I will end up taking up. I mean, I could keep talking to you all afternoon, but I'm not sure that would be fair. And also I think, you know, uh making everybody sit and listen six hour podcasts might be unfair as well. But one thing I I didn't want to miss out on before I let you go was was something that's kind of at the heart of your book, and I think it you know feels like it's it's pretty central to a lot of the the discussion and self-reflection within the world of philanthropy at the moment about how it needs to change, which is the distinction between seeing things as a matter of charity and seeing them as a matter of justice. Um, and and you talk about it in the book, and I and I think you know it's kind of clear that actually that shift of mindset from seeing things as a matter of people making choices about what to give to, and the people that they give to being beneficiaries, you know, who should be grateful for a gift, to one where you think about the the redistribution of money having to be made as a matter of justice, and those who are the recipients are allowed to demand that as a matter of right, seems pretty fundamental to me. I just just wanted, you know, in as far as it's possible to say anything brief about this, for you to you know, just saying a bit about why that distinction for you is so important and kind of what it means going forward for how we think about doing philanthropy.

SPEAKER_02 47:43

Yeah, I I think it's really um fundamental because you know, charity uh in essence, you know, um you know, it it it depoliticizes uh movements, it um dims the light of um frontline communities innovation, it takes away agency. Um I'm not saying that in its purest sense, charity, and I say philanthropy in its purest sense as well, you know, as a love of humanity, I'm not saying that in its purest sense it has no place. I'm just saying that how it's been weaponized, which as I said, really dims the light of the multiple truths and innovations of communities and their ability to self-determine their own destinies, I think that's what is really compromised. So so much of this argument that we're talking about really comes down to that charity versus justice. And when you're talking about justice, you really are saying, you know, we trust in communities to know what's best for them. Um, they know um systemic uh problems and issues better than anyone else because they're experiencing them. And the role of philanthropy or the organizations within you know the charitable sector is to support the people to be able to determine their own destinies and to provide whatever it is, be it the technical support if it's required, or the other things to um be able to facilitate that. But that mindset shift to say that you know um this isn't about um uh philanthropy is not just about, you know, um the haves and the have nots, and that philanthropy in its purest term is around a love of humanity, but it's also not just about money, it's about giving time, it's about giving resources, ideas, and things of that nature. We do really need to move back to a space where philanthropy is reclaimed by the people and becomes more of a cultural practice instead of a bureaucratic one, which is how it exists at the moment.

SPEAKER_01 49:52

Yeah, amen to that. Um, well, it's been absolutely great having a chance to talk to you, Derek. Before I properly let you go, um, I just want to give you the chance uh to let anyone listening know about um what you've got coming up. I mean, obviously the by the time this goes out, the book will be out, and I'll put links in the show notes to where people can find that. But if you've got any kind of yeah events coming up or speaking gigs associating uh with it that you want to plug, uh now's the opportunity.

SPEAKER_02 50:17

Yeah, um well, if you go onto the 10 Years Time website, um then you will see a list of various speaking engagements and things that I'll be doing over the coming months. Um I'll be you know kicking around, hosting uh a few events and doing some talks um around the way. So, yeah, if you go to the 10 Years Time website, you will um find out more about where I will be um in the coming months.

SPEAKER_01 50:43

Great. Uh and yeah, and I'll put a link in the show notes to where people can find that as well. Um it just remains to say thanks ever so much for coming on the podcast. It's great to have the chance to talk. Um, best of luck with the book. I'm sure it'll uh do really well and get lots of attention and lots of debate going. Um and maybe at some point, you know, further down the line we can uh get you back on the podcast to pick up on some of the many questions in my list of bullet points that I didn't get round to asking you.

SPEAKER_02 51:07

We can finally do our six-hour philanthropy director's cut. Yeah, sounds good. Great. Nice to meet you, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 51:25

Okay, great. Well, my thanks again to Derek for finding the time to come on the podcast. Um, as you heard there, somehow Derek and I have never quite managed to meet properly, although I'm sure we've been in the same rooms at times in the past. So it was absolutely great to have a chance to talk to him. Um, I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can find uh some of the things that we're talking about, particularly places where you can find uh information on Derek's book and how to get hold of a copy, and I certainly thoroughly recommend doing that. Um if you're interested more broadly in um thoughts and writing about um civil society and philanthropy, uh I've got a new website, which is one of the new uh exciting things that happened over the summer. Uh it is at www.whyphilanthropymatters.com, uh, and you can find all kinds of articles there, news updates, sort of short guides to key topics in philanthropy. You can also find episodes of this uh podcast there, and uh I've got all kinds of ideas for other sorts of uh outputs, bits of video, audio, uh events, that kind of thing. So uh do check out the website and stay tuned, sign up for updates, which we'll also be doing, I think, a kind of monthly newsletters part of the plan. Um, but hopefully, you know that's going to be a big focus of my work going forward. And if you like the sort of stuff I do, then it's a good place to find that stuff. Uh otherwise you can follow me on Twitter at Rodery underscore h underscore Davis or at for literacy if you like the historical stuff a bit more.

SPEAKER_00 52:52

Um, and other than that, yeah, just like, subscribe, tell all your friends about this podcast, uh, and leave us a nice review wherever you get uh get them. Uh and I'll see you next time. Okay, bye.