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 we are in conversation with Tris Lumley from NPC. Now, Triss is not the first person from NPC to appear as a guest on this podcast. In fact, he is the latest in what's become a bit of a running series slash partnership. So previously we had uh Angie Kale on a little while ago talking with me about the cost of living crisis. Um and back at the start of the podcast um in 2021, um we had uh Dan Currie, the chief executive of MPC as well. Um and hopefully we might have a few more in future. So it's kind of an ongoing sporadic series, think of it in that way. Um but Trisk, who is the director of innovation and development uh at MPC, came on to talk about some of the work that they've been doing around open philanthropy. Um so we had a great conversation um talking firstly about what that project is, the Open Philanthropy Project, how it came about, and how MPC interestingly has been putting some of its ideas around open philanthropy into practice, not just sort of talking about them and producing papers as traditionally uh you know think tanks tend to do, but also actually taking responsibility for some funding. Um we also talked about the distinction between outward openness and inward openness. So kind of transparency on the one hand, really, and being open to the outside world, and inward openness, being more open to other points of view and types of knowledge. Um, so you know, we talked about whether foundations and donors need to be more transparent, and if so, what the argument is for it. Is it primarily a kind of one about legitimacy or is it one about being more effective? Um, we talked about how you actually go about making philanthropy more transparent and the role of open data. We talked about what some of the barriers might be and why there might be reluctance for to be more open from some funders. Um we talked then about inward openness and kind of what that means in terms of participation and getting people with lived experience to be more part of the process when it comes to decision making, but also how you balance that against the the expertise of practitioners and also of funders. Um we talked about some of the challenges that there can be in managing that balance of different types of knowledge. Um we talked about what this means in terms of measurement and kind of how a desire to make philanthropy more open and to shift power away from uh the kind of traditional holders of it, how that relates to uh the current models that we have of measuring impact and social value. I should just say um I've tried to sort it out in the editing. Um Trish's side of the conversation is relatively heavy on the reverb side, but if you just imagine that he's recording it in the middle of a medieval cathedral, uh maybe that'll give you a mental image that'll uh that'll make the whole thing hang together. Um so without further ado, let's go into it and I'll be back at the end for a little bit of housekeeping and tidying up. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Tris Lumley. Hi there, Tris.

SPEAKER_01 3:50

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_00 3:51

Great to have you on the podcast. Um, and for those listening, Tris is Director of Innovation and Development at NPC. And you may remember we've had uh a few other people from NPC on before, Angela Cale and Dan Corrie uh on past episodes. Um so Tris, we're here today to talk particularly about the idea of open philanthropy. Um, so I guess uh you know a starting point would be what does that mean? I know NPC's got its own open philanthropy project. What is that all about and kind of how did it come about?

SPEAKER_01 4:21

Yeah, so uh by open philanthropy we mean open in two ways, and that's open outwards and open inwards. So if if I'm a uh foundation or a philanthropist, the open outwards bit is sharing the work that we're doing for many reasons, and I'm sure we'll get to all of those. Uh, but you know, fundamentally so that it's visible and others can kind of see it and and use it in the sense of you know open data and a lot of the things that you might think about. But the other side of it is open inwards, which is inviting others into your processes and practices and decision making um and being inclusive in how you're approaching that that work. And so they're you know, they're we we call them both bits of open, but they're very, very different in their kind of senses, and not everyone, it um it's not maybe the the best term because not everyone kind of gets that that we mean both sides of that. People often um default to the sort of the open data publication side of things. Um and you know, where did this work come from for us? Where did the open philanthropy project come from? Uh well it's I guess something that's been stewing over the last uh 20 years of NPC and um my uh for my sins 19 years nearly, or nearly of being at NPC, which is uh which is really to get our um hands-on and uh fundraise and then actually to to manage funding so to to operate as a foundation ourselves and therefore to experiment with different funding practices. I think in in my experience, um there's a lot that can be achieved by advising philanthropists and reflecting great work that's going on and sharing, highlighting all of all of that stuff. But at the same time, um I've been getting increasingly uh motivated to try for ourselves, to try and do things differently, and so to see how radically differently we can try and make philanthropy operate by being as openly, uh outwardly open and inwardly open as possible.

SPEAKER_00 6:37

Yeah, that's it's really interesting. I want to pick up on that idea of outward openness and inward openness and sort of dig into both of them a bit more because I think you're you're right. I guess if you say openness, people usually automatically go to the sort of transparency, open data side of things. But actually tying it to that idea of inward openness, I think is really interesting. But I just just wanted to unpick a little bit more. You know, you're saying there about how this is a bit different, maybe for MPC, and that sort of traditionally you do consultancy, but also research and policy work. So kind of thinking about issues and putting thoughts out there. But this is almost a shift into putting some of that in in practice by actually doing. What does that look like in terms of the fund that you've put together?

SPEAKER_01 7:18

So we were able to uh fundraise kind of during the course of the pandemic, really, um, from a number of for a number of uh philanthropists and foundations um enough to to put together a first open philanthropy fund. And that fund is focused on financial hardship in the UK. Uh so what we said to to those uh donors is that you know, exactly as we've been talking about, we want to try things out, we want to see how far we can push philanthropic practices in terms of being inclusive and also sharing our work as we go. Um, and really, you know, I've always been very motivated by the idea of an inside out foundation. That you know, what if all of the work actually happened in the field and um and the money is really influenced by and supporting work that is already happening in the field to prioritize and to um to analyze and to come together to make sense of things together and and to do work together. So I guess a kind of a servant philanthropy rather than a philanthropy in charge. Um and that's what that's what we're trying to do in a small way in this first fund, and that's what I hope we'll do in in future funds is to push that further and further in ways that I don't think you can do unless you're you're hands-on. And just just to say, you know, we've over the years um we've done lots of different bits of um uh of kind of innovating and starting things up, um, often alongside the work. So, you know, we've helped incubate a bunch of different organizations um and models and groups and things. Um but this is uh within the innovation team, this is an attempt to kind of formalize some of that and actually create a program of work that we say, look, we're gonna try stuff out and we're gonna use that to learn and share our learning and hopefully to encourage others to take on aspects of what we're finding is really exciting.

SPEAKER_00 9:19

Yeah, no, it sounds really interesting. Um so just picking up on that idea of outward openness first, I guess that being the the one sort of people most naturally think of, as a starting point, kind of you know, assuming that we think there is a case to be made for it being important that philanthropy becomes more open, what what in your mind is that case? Is it primarily one about addressing concerns about the sort of the legitimacy of philanthropy and and making it more legitimate by being more open and transparent? Or is it more of a sort of pragmatic argument about making philanthropy more effective and doing it better? Or is it some kind of combination of the two?

SPEAKER_01 9:59

Uh I I think it's definitely the latter, although I've been accused of. Is there a thing called the gluttons dilemma? Um, I've been accused of when given a choice, I always choose both. So maybe that's the thing. But yeah, I think you know there are both, there are definitely both rationales, right? That um uh so for me, one of the really big ones is um, and I, you know, I think this is a category error in philanthropy often. I don't know if that's a bit too jargony, but like the scale of challenges um compared to the scale of responses in philanthropy, you just you kind of zoom out a bit and it's just nuts. It doesn't matter which field you're in and what or what sort of approaches we're looking at. Philanthropy never has the resources um in individual institutions to achieve the strategies that usually are are on on the website. Um just philanthropy is is tiny, and so um you know there has to be just the the the effectiveness um the logic argument of uh look if we publish the work that we're doing, then others can use it, and whether others use it to orient their work or to understand um I think it's uh it might be uh a phrase I attribute to Anna DePulford at Delverton Trust of um unacknowledged interdependence, which is a bit of a mouthful, but you know, foundations rely on each other's strategies, and often um they don't know what those other strategies are. So we must publish because that's knowledge that the rest of the field needs to make the most use of what we're doing. Uh, and I just I don't think you can reasonably argue that philanthropy can succeed without better coordination, and some of that coordination has to come through transparency uh and and data about the work. And I think you know, you look at 360 giving and you look at um the kind of the fabulous path that it's taken as more foundations are getting on board, as more data is being published, uh we gain more knowledge about the field, and we can start to see you know the map being illuminated by more and more light sources, and then we can start to work our way around and not bump into mountains and fall off cliffs. Uh so it that's that's the the effectiveness argument. Yeah, it's a very strong one for me. The legitimacy one, I think absolutely, uh if um uh any of the critiques currently or over the history of philanthropy, and you know and have written and spoken much more about that than um than many, um, that uh for philanthropy to have legitimacy, gain legitimacy, um, it's gonna have to deal with scrutiny and uh and transparency about its work and its decision making, and who's involved in that decision making, I think has to be part of that.

SPEAKER_00 12:50

And and you know, you've said that kind of historically philanthropy has hardly been notable for being open. In fact, you know, if anything, the opposite. Why why do you think that is? Do you think it is down largely to sort of practical factors in terms of, you know, until recently it wasn't that easy to make data openly available and accessible? Or do you think it's more sort of cultural factors that there's a fear about being open and transparent and and that that will open you up to scrutiny that you don't necessarily want? I mean, what's your sense of what holds people back from from being more open?

SPEAKER_01 13:25

Yeah, and again, again, I'm gonna say all of the above, but I because I think um uh you know I've seen that the kind of the fear uh of vulnerability as a as a real barrier. Um and uh, you know, completely uh acknowledge that that um when people are making decisions that have real importance because of the the you know large amounts of money that are that are moving and and the way that that influences um people's work and careers and programs and livelihoods as it turns into you know impacting communities, um then there's there's a lot you know there's a lot of of a risk uh and a sense of you know what if people are getting those decisions wrong. There's a huge amount of vulnerability tied up in being more transparent about those things. So I think that psychological aspect and the cultural kind of aspect is huge. And then I think there's also the sort of the more um uh I guess reactive uh impulse as well, which is that if if people or institutions have money, why shouldn't they make their own decisions? And how dare others uh tell them that they should be more transparent about those things? And I think that has you know that's been present in lots of the um kind of responses that uh we've seen and we still see to various aspects of um of scrutiny in all fields, you know. No one, I think no one, no one necessarily no one usually volunteers for more accountability.

SPEAKER_00 14:58

No, agree. I mean, and but you know, following that that thought through, do you are there any arguments that you've heard in favor of either it not being transparent about some things or kind of wanting to retain an element of anonymity even that you think are justifiable? I'm just really interested because some it's one of those things in philanthropy that often gets presented as a kind of binary. It's like either you have to be all in favour of transparency and go the whole hog, or you think everything should be private. And clearly that isn't true. But where for you do you think there are kind of justifiable arguments in favor of not necessarily being open about some things or allowing a degree of anonymity?

SPEAKER_01 15:36

Yeah, I think there are, you know, there are the special cases, and I think they're quite well rehearsed about where um for reasons of uh kind of safety, um, primarily it it is best to retain anonymity either about um organizations that are being supported or the individuals that are involved in those organizations and approaches, basically because others will want to attack them, uh whether that's you know intellectually or um ultimately physically, and uh kind of you know taking away their rights and freedoms and whatever that might be, people who are working in the context of um of regimes that that are oppressive and and um foundations that are trying to work uh against essentially those uh those regimes, and in you know, in the cases of threats of of violence and so on to people involved in work. Um so I think there are uh there are special cases. They they always feel like those are um areas in which the it would be it would be preferable if it were possible to be transparent and to deal with the issues that are um putting people you know in harm's way rather than um rather than keeping things secret. But but it's not possible to do that. It's simply not possible to do that. I suppose I'm I'm less familiar with arguments about why uh privacy is important. Maybe because you know foundations don't want to be known to be operating in a particular field when it sometimes it feels like uh I can't remember who said this. Um I'm afraid I've been in this field field a while and you kind of forget where some things come from. But uh sometimes trusts and foundations kind of partially back what they're backing. Um and so you know, if you're prepared to support something by investing in it, but you're not prepared to support something by saying that you're investing in it and you know backing the people who are doing that work to succeed to the fullest extent, that that feels like that can be problematic.

SPEAKER_00 17:45

And and do you think there's any distinction in terms of thinking about institutional philanthropy, so sort of foundations, as opposed to more informal philanthropy by individuals or or even distinctions in terms of scale? You know, does there come a point at which what you're doing clearly is of a scale where there is a public interest and therefore there's more of a an onus on you to be open? Whereas if you're doing things at a smaller scale, it's more justifiable to kind of want to stay under the radar, or or do you think that's just kind of allowing people off the hook slightly?

SPEAKER_01 18:18

Uh for sure. I mean, I think I'm not going to say that every individual, when they're thinking about their own charitable giving, um, must A invite the whole community into their um their practices and and B publish work in the open on their own blog about how they're making those decisions. Although, you know, some uh you know in the EA community, sorry, the effective altruism community certainly do uh try and do that. Um but I think you know uh the the aggregate of philanthropy is made up of a lot of small uh actors as well as larger institutions, right? So I think it would also be odd to say that only the biggest should take on these um you know these responsibilities. And I think what we've seen with 360 giving, for example, is that smaller smaller foundations can um can use it pretty easily in their support to do that. And once you know more smaller foundations are publishing through it, then you start to get a ri a richer picture. If you only rely on the biggest institutions and what they're publishing, you get a very um uh I don't want to use the word bias, but you know, you get a very skewed view of of what is being funded because it comes from those very large institutions and the behavior of others is is just as important to understand in aggregate.

SPEAKER_00 19:38

Yeah, absolutely. Um I've I've finished doing my devil's advocate bit about why we might you know challenge the idea of openness, but I think it's kind of important to ask those questions. I guess uh you know, moving on to what it actually means in practice, in the work you're doing, what are the things that you're kind of focusing on being an organizations or making philanthropy more open about? Because I guess there are various different dimensions. There's the kind of where the money's coming from in the first place, there's how it's getting spent, there's who's making decisions, and then there's other things like you know, what kind of diversity of you know is there in terms of the makeup of people working in or on the trustee boards of organizations. So which of those are you kind of focusing on?

SPEAKER_01 20:20

Yeah, so the um I'll try and paint a visual picture of this and tell me if it works at all. It comes uh a bit from a workshop exercise that we actually did at the um at the feedback summit um in the US a few years ago. But that was to map out just on a nice uh piece of paper, to map out um a bunch of the stages in a sort of a in a philanthropy process. So, you know, um uh designing a strategy or a funding program uh and then deciding on the kinds of approaches that will be pursued or the kinds of organizations that will be supported, and then actually um making decisions about who and what is funded, um, and uh and then managing those those practices and and doing the learning and reporting and so on. Um, and so mapping those out and then having on in the other part of the matrix in the other dimension um who decides, who does the work, who's involved, who's consulted, and who isn't. Um, and just putting ticks in boxes or kind of heat mapping those different things and looking at philanthropy and saying, okay, so where are the decisions being made and and who's doing the doing the work? And you know, to to one extent that probably sounds quite uh you know quite obvious and quite straightforward. And in in you know, the point being that in in most foundations I think that the work is done by the staff, um, the decisions are made or at least ratified by the board, um, and who is involved and consulted can be anyone from some of the current grantees. To experts in the field, to other funders in various different ways. What we're trying to do and what we're experimenting with and encouraging ourselves to push on as much as we possibly can is to kind of shift that heat map so that who's doing the work and who's making the decisions in all of those aspects, from you know setting strategy and scope all the way through to making decisions about organizations and working out how we're going to learn and manage, um, is uh is shifting away from being a few individuals who are trusted to do so to a much wider group and much wider group. So this is where I I guess I um feel like I have something to say or we have something to say about diversity, because I think in lots of ways I would prefer others to speak and to to listen on that. But I think in philanthropy we need diversity of perspectives, and fundamentally, I think we need three groups, at least three groups, to be involved. So we need lived experience, and obviously that I'm not uh the first person to say that, and over the last few years that's um that's a shift that we've been seeing in in lots of ways in philanthropy. We need practitioner experience too. Uh, and in in MPC's work from you know, from um getting very heavily involved in the evaluation world and um and helping uh accelerate the uptake of of all of that work over the last um couple of decades, we've often seen, I think, practitioners left out of that um that evaluation can be about an expert perspective or whatever, but actually there are people doing work whose perspective is incredibly important to understanding what's going on and what the priorities should be and what the gaps are and all of those things. And the third group is funders, uh, and obviously, you know, whether I was going to say it's their money, um, you can go back to your question about where the money comes from, uh, and openness about that as to whether that's an accurate answer. But nevertheless, so we're trying to put together, and we have put together for these uh for the financial hardship funds, which have just made their um first decisions about grant making, it was really exciting. Uh, these multi-stakeholder panels, two multi-stakeholder panels that comprise lived experience, practitioner experience, and funder experience, and bring them together on a totally equal basis to um to go through the sets of decisions about strategy and scope and focus and what's included and what's excluded, and then making those decisions together. And that's how I think um diversity in philanthropy actually needs to play out is that we need to yeah, we need to reflect all of the different perspectives that are important to to understand this complex set of uh factors in in any area to make the the best decisions and to understand what the priorities should be and uh to know what we already know and what we don't know and all of these things. Um and uh and I think a lot of this probably sounds quite technocratic, and um, I think the thing that to me is really beautiful is that what we're trying to do is to see through the perspectives of others, and not just to do that in a in a simple way, but to bring those different perspectives together and to and to to be generative through that and to to find what we couldn't see before by having all of those groups together.

SPEAKER_00 25:49

It's really interesting, and it's I mean it's definitely brought us, I guess, from from outward openness towards inward openness, almost by using that outward openness to shine a light and show where there is a you know lack of of inward openness, and and it's really interesting to hear what that means. Um, I thought, I mean, one thing I'd really like to pick up on there is is you kind of made that distinction already between um lived experience and then kind of practitioner expertise, and and interestingly, then funders and the need to have all of those, which I totally agree with. And I think the focus on uh lived experience over the last few years and and you know recognizing that and valuing it more is is hugely important. But but again, it's sometimes presented almost as if, well, that's you know, you need to shift entirely in that direction. In in making the case for the the need to also recognize the value of practitioner expertise and and experience, and and even more so the role of funders, have you sort of found anyone raising an eyebrow or had any pushback? Because it it sometimes seems to me as if in in kind of making that case, particularly that funders have a legitimate point of view, you will find people saying, you know, actually, I think they should step out of the way as as far as possible. Um, you know, do you do you feel that that kind of in having to continue to make that case there are challenges and that some people you know don't necessarily find that comfortable?

SPEAKER_01 27:10

Uh yeah, I mean I'd be honest and say that we've been so uh busy getting this fund up and running and and doing the work that um yet to have many of those challenging conversations. But I yeah, I I know they they will come. Uh and I suppose you know in one part philanthropy often feels like it's a little bit too uh zeitgeisty or kind of fad-driven, even. I don't want to call any of these important things fads, but so we shift between one way of doing being really exciting and another without really thinking about how to synthesize and add to. So I think that's just like uh you know um something that we all need to work on in combining different approaches. And then in the other side, there then yes, I think the legitimacy of a funder perspective um can can definitely be challenged when we're talking about uh when we're talking about you know historic exclusion of many communities from all sorts of things, including the decision making about where uh financial resources flow in and around their communities, um, that then yes, that there is a swing towards um lived experience rather than funder experience. I think the thing is that unless unless we're imagining that we live in a completely different world where philanthropy doesn't really exist anymore, then we still want people to want to give. And and so actually the the role of people uh uh as philanthropists, as as givers, as donors in in this mix and how they um everything from how they get a sense of reward uh and excitement from being involved in uh in decision-making processes uh to just wanting to be part of this kind of whole whole practice and process to how they learn from others, they've got to be in the room, right? And I I think that's it's something that I see in in some of the sort of the activist philanthropy philanthropists, the next gen maybe, who are pushing for change in philanthropy, is you know, they're very present as people within the work, and they may even if they're actually often pushing um lived experience and and can kind of a community-driven perspective, they're very important agents of change within this whole thing. So I think you just have to acknowledge that if those people aren't included, they're not going to want to get involved.

SPEAKER_00 29:43

No, absolutely. And and in in the sort of, you know, assuming that we agree, which I think we both do, that actually, you know, what we need to do is find ways of combining those different types of experience and expertise. You know, you've you've said that you've been trying to do that in practice in the work that you're doing. Well, how have you overcome some of the sort of potential challenges that you know that sort of get highlighted in terms of the fact that there are almost unavoidable power differentials between the people who have you know the decision making or have have the resources and those who don't? And even things like you know, just language barriers sometimes, like people often using quite technocratic language on the one hand, or kind of different language coming from you know, activist community or grassroots organizations. Is are those any sorts of things that you've had to think about in the design of how you've brought those groups together?

SPEAKER_01 30:34

Yes, um, yeah, absolutely. And actually, I feel uh almost disingenuous talking about this rather than um my colleagues, a team, that have really been doing this work, um, Jane and Naomi and Alfie and Lily and Jen and Swati and the many kind of participants who've actually been um creating the spaces and the processes that have driven this work. But yes, um uh being inclusive uh and ensuring kind of accessibility in and uh equity in in everything that's being done there has been very, very, very important. So trying to to uh keep materials that are shared beforehand um straightforward and and uh and non-technical jargon, but also having um processes that that kind of that that allow people to um to be supported to be in the room if they need additional support to to kind of to be there and to kind of acknowledge that some will be very, very used to being in those environments and and others aren't. Um and yeah, the team have it's one of the things that they have reflected on most throughout and worked really hard on and and will be uh kind of reflecting from on and learning from the some of the stuff on the on the um on the MPC lab site that you'll see where we've been working in the open on that um is about the practical side of things and about you know, so for example, paying paying people for participation. We felt that it was really important to be totally equitable about that, um, and so actually say, you know, all three groups are being included on the same basis, um, and we would like to compensate you in the same way. However, if you don't feel you need that um compensation because uh because essentially it's your job to do this, or um because you you know even your organization doesn't need the money to replace your time, um then uh then it's an option to to not take that um compensation and and therefore for it can to contribute to the the money that remains in the fund um to spend on the work that's being done. So you know, lots of there's been lots of deep thinking about that, and then actually a lot of the practicalities I think have been really important uh to make sure to make sure that works. And um and listening an awful lot, um, you know, really fabulous facilitation um uh that we've had um by Swati Deepak and Jen Lothrop um really sensitive uh facilitation and and listening a lot to people about the issues that come up. So just you know, one of those being that if you've got practitioner experience and lived experience in the room, well, actually all three, if you're bringing those types of experience together, um then when it comes to thinking about organizations, people will have uh prior knowledge of those and um there is a connection to those and and what could be seen as bias, but they're in the room because we want that experience and expertise. How we then deal with that and how we make it okay for people to share their perspective and feel that that is part of the process has been, yeah, it's been interesting and challenging and valuable to work out.

SPEAKER_00 34:02

Yeah, and I absolutely interesting to hear because I think actually, you know, often this this stuff is easy to talk about it in theoretical terms, but it does come down to quite practical things, like as you say, how do you compensate people for taking part and make sure that what you're doing isn't extractive? Because I know there have been lots of unfortunate examples of people, even with good intentions, wanting to involve communities with lived experience, but doing so in a way that actually ends up probably doing more harm than good in the long run. So I think it's really important to think about those things. Um, have you found in in doing, you know, running those processes so far, have you had any instances in which there's been kind of genuine disagreement about what should be done or how it should be done? And how has that ended up being resolved? And has it has it kind of ended up with any kind of interesting outcomes in terms of somebody genuinely changing their mind in a way that they wouldn't have done if they hadn't gone through the process?

SPEAKER_01 35:00

Yeah, it's it's uh it's interesting. I think you know, uh a lot of this gets to um to the the practices around facilitation and and kind of and consensus building. But um it's part of the reason why um actually an ex-colleague suggested that we have two panels that run in parallel and they're essentially with the same makeup, but just to test out the to an extent the human element and how differently the the focus and conclusions come out of these two panels. Um and actually what I've I've been I've been amazed by the degree of consistency that there has been and the lack of significant agreement, uh disagreement. And that might be because um in the field of financial hardship uh those kind of those massive there are massive schisms between the perspectives that could be taken um and and in other fields there are about you know whether one approach or another approach is right. Um I don't know. But so you know, in in both of those panels, they've ended up with similar but not identical focus, um, focusing on essentially the same demographic groups who are most uh who are most at risk of financial hardship and and most vulnerable to the to the deepest effects and scars of of financial hardship. But they've ended up with slightly different takes on organizational size that they should be supporting. And one has ended up um putting part of the fund into backing grants to individuals, the other has been just uh grants to organizations. So, you know, differences of approach, but not really massive diff disagreements uh about key kind of principles or um key decisions.

SPEAKER_00 36:45

Yeah, no, absolutely. And and one thing I was wondering as well is um, you know, you you mentioned before that there's there's definitely plenty of um you know uh zeitgeist chasing, uh even, you know, again, even when it's kind of for the right reasons in philanthropy. And certainly part of that zeitgeist at the moment would, you know, two elements of that would be the focus on trust-based uh approaches to grant making and participatory approaches. Where for you does this work you're doing on open philanthropy kind of sit um in relation to those things? Because it feels as though you know trust-based grant making is more fundamentally about building the relationships between funders and grantees, whereas maybe what you're doing is about involving different stakeholders uh in decision making about grants that then end up going elsewhere. Is that is that sort of right? How do you view it?

SPEAKER_01 37:33

Yeah, I think that yeah, you and I think you could probably map out um uh trust-based philanthropy on on my earlier um um matrix that's on the wall of my um imaginary workshop. Um that uh that yeah, I that it as you say, focuses on the relationship between uh a funder and their their grantee uh or grantees. Um what we're really interested in is how someone becomes a grantee and all of the processes and practices that lead to there. Um and I think you know that um while there's a huge amount to be said for a trust-based approach and for deepening that relationship, certainly for deepening that relationship, there are also questions about what that means for those who aren't in the picture. Um and just as you know, I I um remember the the sort of the the arc of um of collective impact from its uh from you know, to take a different approach, but from when uh people start getting really excited about collective impact, including, you know, including me, to uh to the then very valid critiques about essentially who ends up being more excluded and further distant from um from power and from decision making when they're not part of that kind of that collective. Uh and that's that I think opened my eyes to the importance of every time you make a decision that this is your group and this is who you will then invest in more, to be just very, very aware of of those that you have um left out of the room before you do that. Uh because I mean again, because you know, maybe it would be different if the if philanthropy were of a much greater scale and there were much more sort of trust-based philanthropy to go around for everyone to be involved in and to be trusted, but there ain't. And so there are an awful lot of folk left out, and then perspectives that aren't included, you know, if if you're listening more deeply, but only to a uh a closed group of perspectives, then that feels um like that can be potentially very dangerous.

SPEAKER_00 39:43

No, I I think that's a really important point because I think it it's increasingly something I'm hearing in conversations and awareness that we it's easy to talk about trust in entirely positive terms. And it you know, fundamentally is a good thing to highlight the importance of trust, but there is a danger it can become exclusionary if it's the only basis on which you do things and you don't make space for new entrants or expanding the the circle of trust all the time.

SPEAKER_01 40:07

Yeah, and um and I'm assuming that the circle of trust isn't uh a reference to um to uh meet the parents, but uh anyway. Um but um yeah, it also makes me think that you know, one of the other when a worry about trust-based um philanthropy is that you know if we're if we're trusting uh our grantees more, um where's where is the role of accountability to the to the people that they are there to serve? Um and you know, impact measurement for its many sins as an approach hasn't always done the best job of bringing that accountability um to primary constituents to the fore, but um, but there's an intent there. There are lots of other ways that we might think about doing that. So, you know, it if you trust if you trust those that you're funding, what does that mean about um about those that they're supposed to be supporting? Do you then trust them more and do you have mechanisms to to to make sure that's there or do you not? And so again, it sort of comes back in my mind to this the importance of having these three groups um in the picture of lived experience and practitioner experience and funder experience together.

SPEAKER_00 41:19

And I think, yeah, the fact you you mentioned their impact um uh measurement, which is something I wanted to ask about next, actually, because um I think it's a big part of these conversations in that as there's all this kind of focus on shifting power more and making decision making more democratic and participatory, I think there's definitely a school of thought that measurement has in some cases become almost a sort of tool of oppression or something that reflects unequal power dynamics. And I just wondered, given that you know NPC has for a long time been you know very heavily involved in thinking about how to do measurement better and more effectively and more appropriately, how your work and your thinking around open philanthropy has has informed your thinking about measurement.

SPEAKER_01 42:06

Yeah, uh, and I'll be very honest to say that that is is a very ongoing process, I think, in in my head and in our organization and and in the work we're doing, seeing how that seeing how that plays out. I mean, certainly we have we have attempted to uh to bring as much of the best of uh you know the use of evidence to bear in the open philanthropy work that we're doing as possible. So actually those multi-stakeholder panels were presented with a kind of an evidence um uh brief on the on the landscape to to feed into that. Um but I think it's you know it it it isn't straightforward. I think um we've been wrestling with um with ensuring that uh the measurement and data aren't just um how to say this. So I think it it's clear that they are tools, and those tools are therefore subject to the existing power dynamics, whatever they are, right? There I think there was a hope in early MPC that they were tools that would change the power dynamics, and I think uh ultimately that's been shown to be somewhat naive by what's happened over the last 20 years. But so I I don't think that means that they're they're tools that can't be used to help shift power dynamics, but there has to be something else that is doing that shifting. You can't just rely on the data to do that. So, you know, if you have a practice where you're you're playing evidence back to communities and saying, what does this mean? Help us make sense of it. Um, does it resonate with your experience? How should we use that? Then that's doing something purposeful to try and use measurement and data to shift things. Um but I so I think you know the it's not straightforward.

SPEAKER_00 44:00

to to work out how to do this how to do this well um there's the the equitable evaluation uh kind of group uh and and collaboration that we're involved in that's looking at these questions in you know how actually to do evaluation um in the context of power dynamics and how to think about uh um doing uh justice to the thinking about diversity equity and inclusion through work on evaluation but i think there are also questions about when we come back to the perspectives of the three groups that I'm talking about what do they count as uh as data and evidence and um and what do you need to include their perspectives uh and are any of the tools that we're using for measurement actually doing a good job of bringing those perspectives fully uh into play yeah no I think that's I mean they are fascinating conversations and I think really important ones and as you say it's got it again it's one of those areas where it feels as though there's a definite danger of going too far and throwing the baby out with the bathwater because it the idea that no measurement of any kind whatsoever is necessary seems equally you know as bad as as having only very very rigid systems of measurement that are based on uh you know the kind of needs and priorities solely of the funder. So I think it's really important that we do talk more about that. I just there were a couple two more things I wanted to to ask you just following on from this and then I promise I will uh let you uh go because I'll keep you too long otherwise. What one was in terms of the actual so we talked about you know measurement there in terms of the actual nature of the funding that you are you either have made through the fund so far or kind of envisaging making is there any emphasis particularly on on particular types of funding and I'm thinking here of you know core cost unrestricted funding rather than programmatic funding and and timescales as well you know the timescales that you're thinking of funding over are they parts of of the conversation?

SPEAKER_01 46:00

Yeah I mean in in this first uh first fund which is a first step and uh you know is is constrained in lots of ways by the the amount of uh funding that we actually had to um to to get out the door in grants which was sort of just shy of 600 000 pounds um so you know not a huge amount and therefore uh lots of constraints around that and also focused on financial hardship um which is a uh a subset of much bigger issues around poverty and so on so yes absolutely there's a um uh uh commitment to uh to unrestricted funding um and to being as um unencumbering in in what we're doing to to those that are funded as possible but there are constraints around the timescales over which we're funding and so on.

SPEAKER_00 46:49

The um in the next phase he says before the next phase is um kind of funded but we are fundraising for for for the next phase of our open philanthropy work where we hope to continue the work on financial hardship but also to um to develop a uh a youth climate fund um linked to the everyone's environment work so those you know those questions then um uh are all up for grabs and you know when you think about youth and climate change then timescales uh an entirely different matter are we thinking about just over the next few years or are we thinking about over generations and therefore the the approaches that we might support um actually the approaches we'll take even to to making decisions and imagining what's possible and the timescales uh uh over which they might work are very very different but we've had to be more constrained in this in this first phase and and one thing it just just occurred to me as well is we talk quite a lot here in terms of the the inward openness about the almost the the vertical relationship that goes down from uh funders to uh to grantees to the the people and communities that they're working with but I guess there's also a a horizontal element of that openness as well which is how open are funders to learning from other funders or collaborating with them. In terms of you know your ambitions for the fund is part of it about getting more collaboration between philanthropic funders because I know that's something we hear quite a lot about as well that it's frustratingly a world in which collaboration historically hasn't perhaps been a norm.

SPEAKER_01 48:22

Yeah absolutely and you know uh so I'll be the first to say there's lots of good work going on about um collaboration at the moment including the collaboration hub um uh that's uh that's been developed over the last few years um by ACF and others uh so there's more stuff going on but yeah it's uh you've probably heard I've certainly heard the the phrase which fills me with um terror and uh repulsion that when you've met one funder you've met one funder and it's sometimes said as a kind of a triumph with pride um and I'm I'm just like all right if if your philanthropy is about entertaining yourself or philanthrament as a European colleague once um named it fine but that's not the game we're in that's not the the pursuit that we're in and so that um that individualism uh is is deeply worrying and so yeah we we absolutely think um uh and here here comes a Lego analogy I don't know if uh uh if if listeners will be uh will be Lego fans whether this will go uh um go well or will tank but um I I do think about the two kinds of openness in in terms of Lego my son has an awful lot of it in his room I'm a fan too um that so part of part of the the outward openness is kind of um is making it possible for others to join onto your work um just like Lego and whether that's by just publishing it so that others can see it or whether it's actually making it and this is not a word but collaborable by saying you know here are the ways in you could co-fund this you can come into the decision making processes whatever it's exposing that to others um to say you know funders we can work together and then the you know the other thing about Lego is it's kind of it's a standard that then you can put all of these different things together so that it does uh enable collaboration and that both um the the inward openness that then comes around which is that um we can see you're doing this piece we're doing this piece let's work together on that or you know let's throw it out there to to everyone and see what the ideas are and they know the materials they're working with so that they can build stuff that then we can build on so I think it's changing the kind of the substrate um for for the work and you know funders don't like to be described as you know just the money and they're right there philanthropy is a knowledge process right and and one that I think is done incredibly poorly through competitive selection processes.

SPEAKER_00 50:56

If you see an application form for funding as a set of really important questions that are then buried and kind of thrown away when we pick winners at the end of that versus those questions being things that we bring people together to explore and we expose um you know as a community to work out yeah what are the problems that we want to solve let's work that out what what are the problems what are the priorities what should they be uh and and what can we do about those uh so shifting um shifting uh the understanding of philanthropy and foundation's jobs to being that they're knowledge workers and they're working through these really important areas of uh of knowledge and insight and decision making um and that actually I think the the furthest that collaboration can go is once they start to work in in these sorts of ways openly on these questions then you can get involved in loads of different ways at loads of different stages it's not just about one funder saying this is what we're funding you could fund these things too it's much more multidimensional and much richer than that I think uh it's really interesting and I think yeah I mean this necessitates a whole mindset shift about how you envision the role of a funder and also kind of how you as a funder quantify your own sense of success or self-worth, which I think is is really important. I think something that we need to do. So you know I mean it's it's a really interesting idea. And the the final thing I just wanted to ask was to sort of zoom out totally from from all of this stuff and just ask a question that I mean links to what we talked about earlier about whether this focus on making philanthropy more open is about legitimacy or or or kind of you know efficiency and making practice better. On the assumption that it's at least partly about addressing some of the challenges and the criticisms of of philanthropy and it and its legitimacy within society to what extent do you feel that it this kind of work genuinely does address that? I mean do you think it is it can be a total answer or do you think we need to acknowledge that there's only so far we can go in in terms of addressing some of those criticisms by making philanthropy more open and collaborative but there will still be kind of fundamental underlying concerns about about its relationship to inequality or the role it plays in democracy.

SPEAKER_01 53:19

Yeah I I think for sure there will and there should be uh and um and uh and the sc the scale of philanthropy on its own even if you were just to take this from a purely instrumental perspective is not great enough to to tackle challenges or really to to um to reduce inequality it might be uh you know it might be a catalyst for those things but so even if we're most optimistic then yes those those questions will remain but I think and you know this is my the the little utopian dream that I think one way of seeing all of the the work that we've been talking about is actually it's in here's the inside out foundation thing. So it it's then all of the work that we're doing is ultimately then strengthening the field and really building infrastructure in the field rather than within our walls as foundations or whatever that might be. So it's building structure and uh solidarity and power in all of the organizations and actors who could then take more um take more control, have greater agency and uh and do more whether that's funded by philanthropy or in other ways to develop their own economic independence to um to be just more in control of their own destiny. So I think you know if if it's if it's about philanthropy kind of playing a role in that broader ecosystem and that working openly eventually leads to something that is much more about an open and collaborative and and well equipped sector then I think that's a hell of a platform from which to to to do other things even if that means you know people paying more taxes and there being less philanthropy but we've still been building the fields that are then ready to to take those kind of ideas and approaches forward and to bring communities and uh and experienced practitioners and evidence and knowledge together and and to succeed in the future.

SPEAKER_00 55:32

Yeah yeah here here um we just remains to say thanks ever so much for for coming on the podcast Tris it's great to have a chance to talk um I guess the the final thing is just I'll put links in the show notes to where people can find some more information about MPC and about the Open Philanthropy project.

SPEAKER_01 55:47

But you know is there anything that you would particularly kind of want to put out there as a call to people who might you know have heard this conversation and are wondering how they can get involved yes uh well first of all thanks very much for having me I've really enjoyed having the chance to to witter on and hopefully there's still some people listening to to hear this but yeah um it's it is about open philanthropy so we really do want everyone to get involved in whatever way that's possible. So if you know if people have ideas um about the the stuff we've talked about or about opportunities to take some of these approaches forward would love to hear if people want to get involved by uh by funding by getting involved in the next stage of the work um then that's absolutely fantastic too and we'll have we have a a kind of a a a learning and celebration event coming up coming out of this first phase of work um that we'll be sharing details of soon on our site so um maybe you know might even meet some people in person at that um and and get involved in work in the future.

SPEAKER_00 56:51

Great well that sounds all really exciting um brilliant well thanks Tris. Thanks so much for having me Rodriguez Okay great well my thanks again to Tris for finding the time to come on the podcast. Great to have a chance to talk. I'll put links in the show notes to where you can find more information on NPC's open philanthropy work. I'll put some links to things that I've written that are relevant to what we've been talking about and some other materials that might be of interest. If you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society uh do check out the website at whyphilanthropymatters dot com and of course check out npc's website where they've got lots of papers and reports and blogs uh as well about many many different aspects of philanthropy uh why not follow me on Twitter at Rodri underscore h underscore davis or at philiteracy if you want the stuff that's more history and kind of theory focused uh you can find me on LinkedIn as well I'm also on Mastodon and you know all the rest of it apart from that just like subscribe tell all your friends about it leave us a nice review on iTunes or wherever else you get your podcasts and I'll see you next time by the way