SPEAKER_01 0:38

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, Rodri Davis, and this week we are in conversation with Fozia Erfan. Now, Fozia is the director of Impact and Influence at BBC Children in Need. It's her day job. She's also got quite a lot of non-exec positions, so she's chair of 360 Giving, which is an excellent organization. She's a board member of Fair for All Finance and also on the board of Alliance magazine, amongst many, many other things. But more importantly than all of that, she's one of my favourite people in the whole philanthropy sector, which is not doing a disservice to all of the rest of you out there. But I've known Fozia for quite a while now and done various bits and pieces with her over the years. And I always find talking to her an absolute joy, and it makes me feel uh kind of renewed in my enthusiasm for philanthropy and gets me uh thinking uh and kind of wanting to get stuck into some of these issues. So I sat down with Fozia not long ago now to talk about a paper that she uh fairly recently put out um earlier on at the start of this year off the back of a Churchill Fellowship, a research project that she had some funding for. Um the paper is called Transformative Philanthropy, a manual for social change. Um, and you can actually find that on my own website on why philanthropy matters, because uh one of the things that I offered to do to help out was to host that or to give it somewhere to live in in digital form. So I'll put links uh to all of that in the show notes so that you can read the report and the accompanying workbook. Um, but I sat down with Fozia to talk a bit about why um she wanted to do this report, how it came about, and what the kind of um key aims behind it were. Um the the idea, as you'll hear, essentially, was to go and talk to uh philanthropic funders in the US who focus on kind of genuinely transformative efforts to use philanthropy to drive social change and to see what it was about how they think about philanthropy and how they do philanthropy that maybe is a bit different and that we could learn for. Um, and through this, Fozier proposes a really interesting sort of five-part model for transformative philanthropy. And so we worked through some of those different um stages and kind of what they actually mean in practice for um philanthropic funders, particularly sort of institutional funders and foundations. So we talked about the idea of that you need to have a pre-process of grounding, first of all, um, and we talked there about what it actually means to use a social justice framing for philanthropy and whether that's something that is applicable to all foundations and to all philanthropy, or whether it's a sort of specific part of philanthropy and just something for some organizations. You'll be unsurprised to know the answer is more the former than the latter. Um, we talked about um what it actually means when you apply that social justice framing, why you need a kind of theoretical basis um in terms of understanding what different types of theories of social justice there are, and why that's not just kind of you know hand-waving, uh beard-stroking uh academic uh waste of time, but actually something that's really important. And we also talk there about the value of history and the importance of acknowledging history when it comes to trying to provide that that grounding. Um, we talked about the the next stage, which is imagining and why it's really important that funders are able to express a clear vision behind their work, not one that's overly generalistic and that sort of allows too many things to be included, but one that that gives ambition but also narrows the scope sufficiently that you can actually kind of tell what it is that you're going to do, and I guess more importantly, maybe what you're not going to do. Um, we then talked about it the stage of embodying, which is kind of starting to put these things into practice, and the the three core elements of that that Foza talks about are taking a community-centric approach to funding, taking an intersectional view of funding, and engaging in movement building. And we talked a bit about why all of those are important and and what they mean, and we talked um in a bit more depth about the idea that foundations should be seeking to support and to develop social movements and kind of why that is uh so important and why it's perhaps been an underdeveloped part of the the philanthropy world, particularly in the UK. Um, we talked about the the building stage, which um is kind of trying to develop things at a at a sectoral level and to try and get foundations to think more about working cross-sectorally, um, so uh with with other foundations within the philanthropy world, but also with uh public bodies and with private sector companies, um, and also to think beyond maybe their traditional silos of cause areas and to think more kind of multi-dimensionally and to think more broadly in terms of the tools that they could be using to drive social change. We then talked a little bit about uh a couple of the specific things that come up in the report, particularly around the uh the legacies of sort of colonialism and slavery and what that means, both in terms of understanding the nature of poverty in the UK and how that should inform the work of philanthropic funders, but also the impact that it might have on some philanthropic funders themselves in terms of where their wealth has come from. And we sort of touch briefly on why that's important and also why it's become increasingly controversial. Um, uh, so without further ado, let's go into the conversation. Um, there's lots and lots of stuff in there, so I hope you'll really enjoy it. Um, I will be back at the end for the usual bit of housekeeping. Um, but for now, here's Fozia. Okay, great. Well, I'm here with Fozia Erfan. Hi there, Fozia.

SPEAKER_00 6:27

Hi, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 6:28

Oh, well, it's really nice to have you on the podcast. It's uh you know it's a slightly unusual one in that um we actually have met and chatted many, many times um before, whereas often I'm kind of doing partly a sort of introduction to me, and it's the first time I have a chance to talk to someone, but that's you know, it this is equally exciting in a different way. And yeah, the the reason that I really wanted to get you on uh now, um as some people listening might already know if they've been lucky enough to catch you at one of the uh many, many events you've been speaking at recently, um, is that you um earlier on in the year and around February, I think, put out um a new paper um called Transformative Philanthropy, um, which came off the back of a Churchill fellowship um that you'd been doing for a couple of years. Um and I think everybody found all the ideas in that um really, really fascinating. And I wanted to kind of dig into some of them and talk about how um you know the response to that paper had gone so far and what your hopes for the future were. Um so maybe the best place to start is for you just to say a bit about what the paper is is about, uh how it came about and sort of how the the Churchill Fellowship informed that.

SPEAKER_00 7:33

Yeah, sure. So um I applied for the Churchill Fellowship um in about 2019 and received it in 2020, just before the pandemic. So I had this huge excitement that um I'd got the award and I could travel and learn about philanthropy in other places, and then we went into lockdown. So um I didn't actually travel until last year, uh three years later, and I went across uh to America, uh, to New York, Washington, and San Francisco, and my main aim was really to understand um how philanthropy worked in the US, uh, the differences obviously between both countries, both countries and their context, but also to particularly look at how you shift the dial and how you bring about social change, because that's the type of philanthropy I'm interested in, is philanthropy where you build movements, you bring about social change, and there's a real sense of social justice. Um, so that was the premise uh that I uh went on. Um, and then came back in um it took about four weeks to travel around, came back and then spent six months really trying to understand the magnitude of what I had been told because I interviewed 20 people from across a range of foundations, really huge ones like Ford Foundations um and very small ones like the Masto Foundation, and trying to make sense of you know everything that had been, you know, all the wisdom that had been given to me took a while. Um, and I've still got the spreadsheet uh of I think it's like a hundred you know, rows and columns um where I've coded all those interviews. Um, but what I wanted to do particularly was not to just do a verbatim account and report of what I'd been told, and I didn't want to do something which was really academic and would just sit on a shelf somewhere. I wanted to translate what I'd learned into a UK context and come up with the key ingredients really for philanthropy, which was about social change. So the report that I've ended up with, I hope people find it interesting and engaging. You know, it's colourful, it's um, you know, it's it's not your normal sort of academic report at all. Um, and then alongside that, I also did a small workbook which um sets out questions that you can discuss as teams to really bring the report to life.

SPEAKER_01 10:10

Yeah, absolutely. And I'll certainly put links in the show notes to where people can find both of those. Um so there's a couple of things I just wanted to ask about the sort of the overall idea behind the report before we dive into the structure and kind of pick into some of the the stages that you you've kind of got in this model for transformative philanthropy that you outlined. I guess one of them is the the idea behind the the report and the Churchill Fellowship, as you say, was to go and speak to people in the US and to get thoughts and insights from them um on sort of social justice and social change philanthropy. Why did you think that was valuable? Do you think that the US is kind of more sophisticated or developed, particularly when it comes to that kind of philanthropy, so we can learn from it?

SPEAKER_00 10:52

I think you can learn philanthrop from philanthropy in any country that you visit, uh, because every country, every area has a different concept of philanthropy and different ways of um funding and grant making. Um I think what really attracted me to the US was the fact that we have seen in the last couple of years these big uh global movements in relation to uh Black Lives Matter, Me Too, etc., which you know seem to be quite concentrated uh within the US. Um but then also philanthropy in the US is at such a huge scale and has such a broader remit than in the UK. Obviously, the boundary between the welfare state and philanthropy is um is a lot uh, you know, the the boundary towards philanthropy stepping in is a lot more accepted there and it's a lot more practiced. Things that we expect the welfare state to be doing in the UK, philanthropy is doing in the US. So um the scale of it, the breadth of it, and um the mobilization of particular funders in relation to social movements, those were the things that I think really attracted me to go understand uh and try and understand what exactly was happening there.

SPEAKER_01 12:10

Yeah, absolutely. And and the other kind of big question that I just wanted to ask is in terms of the the way that you presented the thoughts in the report, obviously you've put structure around it, but you've used some of those quotes. And I think one of the things I really enjoyed is that you know, a few of those quotes are pretty punchy for reports on philanthropy. I guess it the question is, you know, to what extent are those quotes, you know, a reflection of you saying this is definitely what I think, as opposed to kind of presenting a view which may go across a spectrum from people who are you know more cautious or uh are kind of you know um incremental, or those that are pretty radical on this stuff.

SPEAKER_00 12:45

I think I see my role as a uh gentle agitator uh in the sector, in that the thing that I enjoy is bringing different perspectives to the table and challenging the status quo. But I try to do it in a way which is engaging and non-confrontational, and I think will be more effective in the long run. So I think it's important for me to present alternatives, to present provocation and challenge and that whole spectrum of voices, and then for people to make up their own minds as to whether or not they relate and they engage. But it's you know, it's the conversation and it's the debate which I think takes us further. Um and I, you know, I and that's the bit that I really enjoy, especially in collating all of these quotes, some of which are quite um punchy, as you say.

SPEAKER_01 13:36

Yeah, but yeah, I mean you'll be unsurprised to hear that I'm furiously nodding away about your points there about trying to kind of bring diverse voices together in a constructive way, because absolutely I think that's a you know a great thing to be doing. If we sort of dive into um the actual content of the report now, I guess that the way I was thinking about structuring this is to follow a little bit the structure of the report itself. And for people who haven't read it, one of the kind of key things that you do in it is outline these five stages um uh that you kind of propose for putting the idea of taking a transformative approach to philanthropy into practice. So maybe you could say a bit about what those five stages are and then we can pick up on on each of them and sort of uh dig into them a bit.

SPEAKER_00 14:16

Yeah, so the thing that I realized about um transformative philanthropy is that it's a process. It's not something that just arises out of nothing one day. There's there have you have to go through a process of getting to that place where you're actually bringing about social change. And there are key ingredients. So I like to think of these as ingredients and elements of that movement towards uh transformative philanthropy, some which some foundations may be doing, some which they may not. Um, but these are the ones that I would say are evident in almost all of the foundations that I spoke to in the US. And the the first stage is about grounding, and that's really about understanding and embodying yourself in history, in your paradigm of philanthropy, whatever it is, and really trying to understand the context that you're working in. Because obviously, without that, it's difficult to build onto what the next stage is, which is all about visioning and imagining. Um, and the imagining stage is really about having a very strong and specific vision, so um not generic, wishy-washy, um, I you know, I want to change the world type of vision, but very specific about what you want to do with your philanthropy. And I saw a lot of really good practice in that area. From that stage where you've grounded yourself and you've imagined what your specific vision could be, then there's a process what I call embodying, which is about really living out the values in your approach. And those values that I think are fundamental are being community-centric, looking through an intersectional lens, and focusing on building movements. So that's all about uh the key ingredients in terms of your grant making. Um, and then the final stage is really about building. So if you've got all of those ingredients together, um, what should your approach look like? And that's where I focus on the elements of being multidimensional and cross-sectoral. So um this type of philanthropy, transformative philanthropy, has to be done in partnership, in collaboration, and within the wider ecosystem. Um, it's not be it's about it's not about doing everything on your own and um you know taking the glory and thinking that you know you're changing the world. It's about recognizing that as funders we have limited resources, uh limited capacity. And actually, if we work with others across sectors, the public sector, private sector, um in a multidimensional way, using lots of different tools, not just our funding, that's when that you start to see real social movement happening.

SPEAKER_01 17:05

Yeah, absolutely. Um and and I should say, just winding back a bit, I mean, it'll be clear from what we've been saying so far, but just to sort of clarify that the focus of the report and the recommendations in it is really around kind of institutional philanthropy and particularly uh kind of foundations as funders, although a lot of it is uh relevant, I would say, to individual philanthropists as well. Um if if we kind of pick up on that that first stage, the the grounding stage, I suppose one of the big questions when it comes to this report or the whole idea of taking a you know a justice um focused approach to philanthropy is you know, is that something just for a small subset of foundations or a particular type of philanthropy, or is it something that all uh f uh foundations should aspire to or be expected to do? And and I guess for those that maybe don't see themselves as justice funders or social justice funders at the moment, what does that look like?

SPEAKER_00 18:02

Yeah, no, and I this is one of the aspects of the report which I really grappled with because uh when I spoke to the funders in the US, every single person I spoke to used the term social justice or was able to talk really articulately about what social justice meant to them to a level and a confidence that I I have not seen in the UK sector. So I really pondered about whether to use this terminology. But when you look at philanthropy and the purpose of philanthropy, and also your paper that you produced on the history of social justice, philanthropy, which you know talks about the origins of philanthropy and um historically how philanthropy was used for social change. There has always been this concept of social justice at the heart of philanthropy, which we've moved away from. And I think if people really understood what social justice meant, then they would um probably see that quite a lot of funders that are already doing this in the UK, they just don't call it that. But I'm quite keen for us to start claiming those words because I think once you claim words and you move them from the margins to the mainstream, they become a part of accept uh of accepted discourse in the same way that four or five years ago nobody talked about equity. Now every single funder will talk about equitable funding and they understand what it means and the approach. So social justice framing, I think, is really incredibly important. And I know there's a lot of discussion about what we mean by social justice framing, and I think that's a distraction. In the report, um, I've used uh the indicators set out but by the resource generation, where they've identified five key elements of what they uh see as a social justice approach. And I would say a lot of funders are doing this already. It's based on having a systemic lens, it's based on being accountable and transparent and responsive in grant making. Um, it's about recognizing that communities should be at the center of decision making and that you uh not only contribute money but also time, knowledge, skills, and foundations should also use their assets and investments. So if you if I talk about those five indicators, you would probably be able to identify quite a few foundations who are in that space to some extent, but they don't use the word social justice. And to me, essentially, social justice framing is all about a systemic lens at the heart of it. It's about recognizing that we need to address the root um causes of all the issues that we're dealing with, as well as the immediate needs.

SPEAKER_01 20:45

Yeah, and and one of the things I really liked about that part of the report is that it makes it clear, I think in a really helpful way, that part of the process of framing things around social justice is understanding what theory of justice you're appealing to, and that there isn't just one. Because I because again, I think one thing that always strikes me about any attempt to reform philanthropy is you get this sort of particularly for foundations, you get this kind of natural resistance because you know, as you and I both know, foundations quite often don't really like being told to do things in a particular way if they feel that this is kind of you know quite uh kind of top-down, or or that it's sort of telling them they need to fit in a particular box. Whereas that's not what social justice is about. Actually, there's a pretty broad spectrum of things that fit within social justice. And I thought that was really interesting.

SPEAKER_00 21:35

Yeah, and um again, this is something that people may think is too abstract and academic for um you know the work that grantmakers do, but uh you really un need to understand which version of social justice your uh foundation is interested in. Because, you know, I've put in the in the report um I think there's eight different elements of um of of Philosophical traditions in relation to social justice framing. One which may be based on human rights. So, for example, you know, if you're a foundation which is focused on the criminal justice system, that could be your lens through which you look at all of your funding and foundations, is through, you know, the rule of law, through looking at human rights. Others may be looking at social justice in terms of empowerment or in terms of equality or distribution of resources. They're all quite different. And I think this is why sometimes there's quite a mismatch within foundations because people talk about social justice as if it's one thing. And the trustees on a board may have a completely different philosophical tradition that they're referring to when they're talking about systemic change, for example, or what they're trying to reach in terms of equality. And grant-making staff and teams may have a completely different version of what they're trying to do. So, although it seems an academic exercise, it will give huge clarity of purpose if you understand the exact tradition that you want to be following in your foundation.

SPEAKER_01 23:12

Yeah, I I mean I I totally agree. And I think that sort of the slightly allergic reaction to any kind of theoretical framing is you know it's understandable because this stuff can get very abstract. But the thing I find is people end up talking about this stuff unavoidably anyway, but they just do it without any of the necessary kind of concepts and framings.

SPEAKER_00 23:33

Without the frameworks, exactly. Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 23:35

Um the thing I I wanted to ask actually sort of two-link questions, I suppose, which is what's your sense of the extent to which um for foundations taking this social justice framing is going to be just about reinterpreting what they're already doing and kind of creating a a common language, and and how much it's going to be about actually needing to do things differently. Um and and I guess on that latter one, then does it mean that that what they do is different? So they actually need to sort of focus on different areas and maybe you know kind of different causes, or is it more about how they do things, you know, the actual process of how they fund and interact with with their grantees?

SPEAKER_00 24:18

I think it's both. I think there I think, as I said, there are funders already doing this, they're just not calling it uh social justice philanthropy or systemic change. And so I think there are there are foundations who this will be quite familiar territory, if just a slightly different language. There are other funders and foundations who are perhaps on a journey of exploring how far they want to go down the systemic route. Um, you know, there's a huge amount of philanthropy which is all about addressing immediate need, which is very important. Um, but increasingly, and I think as the challenges within the charitable sector grow and as resources are limited, more and more funders are starting to say, well, hang on, we're dealing with the same issues that we were dealing with 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago, and actually things are getting worse, and this is unsustainable and it's untenable. So I think we're also at a particular time where philanthropy is really having to question whether or not it can continue to just keep doing what it's doing, or whether it needs to start tackling those root causes and those system, the those systemic issues. Some will go down that route and some will choose not to. And I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. Um, you know, if your philanthropy is about hats for donkeys, you know, your philanthropy is about hats for donkeys, it's not about social change. So you'll never be in that social change space, and that's that's uh the choice that each trust and foundation will make. Um but I hope what this um report does is give people the vocabulary and the tools to have these discussions and see where they are on that spectrum.

SPEAKER_01 26:03

Yeah, I think that's really interesting. And on the hats for donkeys question, um, I do think one of the things that is important, I guess, in talking about the the relationship between philanthropy and justice or always is maybe is maybe to allow that some philanthropy is not necessarily going to be focused on justice, and you might think that's not acceptable, or you might think it is, but at least going through the process of identifying and understanding what it means allows people to do that more intentionally. Um I always think a bit a bit like the um you know the the idea that if you provide people with more information on philanthropy and more data, um, you know, they they'd have be much better informed about you know where to fund, where the most pressing needs are, what other people are doing, but they might still choose to fund things that I would think are deeply silly. And and at the end of the day, that might be their choice, but at least we kind of we're all on the same page.

SPEAKER_00 26:57

Absolutely. Um that's exactly it. It's about having informed decisions, it's about uh being un having a deeper understanding, because you know, the majority of philanthropy is in the public sphere. Um, so you need to really understand why you're doing what you're doing. And I don't think all philanthropy should be one way or should be one model or should be fixated on one thing. That's that's the you know, the one of the strengths of philanthropy is that there are different people doing different things. So there is no one size fits all, but whatever philanthropy you choose, um, I would hope it's an informed decision about actually uh, you know, for example, in uh children in need, a lot of our um responsive portfolio is funding immediate need, but that's a conscious decision, it's a choice that's been made that this is where we feel that we, you know, we're one of the largest funders of children and young people in the UK. And if we stepped away from that space, you know, there would be a huge gap. So we're staying in that space, we're doing other things um in relation to uh a strategic change and systems change, um, but that will be on top of um you know our bread and butter, which is about immediate need.

SPEAKER_01 28:09

Yeah, and I think that point, because it quite often this is one of the sort of examples where where people uh you know settle on, which is that is that that tension between addressing immediate need versus kind of underlying causes. And I think you're you're right. I mean, neither neither is right or wrong, you know, but it if it's a conscious choice, both need doing, and some funders might focus entirely on one or the other, or they might try to you know spread their efforts between the two, and all of that's okay, but when we when nobody's talking about it, it just sort of happens anyway, and we don't really know what's going on.

SPEAKER_00 28:42

So exactly, exactly.

SPEAKER_01 28:44

Um, I just wanted to finally on the on the grounding stage, we kind of mentioned in passing already, you mentioned the importance of historical context, and we sort of mentioned it there in the context of understanding some of the historical context behind philanthropy itself and the ways we do it and the models we use. But I think in the the paper, you also mentioned that actually some of that historical context is about understanding the historical context for the cause areas that you're working on, or the kind of the wider system of you know within society that that your um that foundations are trying to operate in. Is is that also an important part of history?

SPEAKER_00 29:20

It really is, and I'm not just saying that because we're both history nerds and we love this topic. We do, yeah. But it's you know, it's it's fascinating to me that you know funders and philanthropists will not go and do a deep exploration of the issues that are facing communities and the history of communities. And you know, this is one of the things that was so explicit with the foundations that I spoke to the US in the US. They could speak really eloquently and articulately about the history of communities, about the history of land ownership, about the history of public policy, all of these things which were foundational for their understanding of the steps and the solutions that they were going to build. Um, so it was it was something which was really tangible and present in conversations, on websites, in programs, was a recognition of history and the trajectory as to how we've ended up where we have. Um, and I use an example of um, for example, racially minoritised uh communities in the UK. If you look particularly at communities, black and Asian communities in the UK, and there's so much funding going into sort of racial justice work and well, racial equity work, but there's very little understanding that it there's a direct connection between the way those communities are situated in the UK at the moment and colonial history, because it was the creation of the Commonwealth, which was you know former colonies, and then the invitation to people from those colonies to come to the UK and be met with the worst of circumstances, uh, the worst of opportunities, the worst housing, the worst education, which has led to where those communities are still situated. And so you can't just build a program and say, well, let you know, without acknowledging that history and acknowledging how people have ended up in those circumstances, because that's also what gives you that structural um lens in terms of addressing um and building the solutions.

SPEAKER_01 31:32

Yeah, and I'd you know, if we certainly if we've got time, I'd like to come back to the question around um understanding the impact of colonialism, the role it's played, particularly because it obviously has specific relevance for philanthropy in terms of wealth generation and where wealth has historically come from, um, which I know again is a topic that both of us are very interested in. Um, but I just wanted to move on to the second stage in the process that you identify, which is around imagining. Um, and you said in that that you know the crucial bit of that is for funders to be able to express a clear vision. Maybe you could say a bit more about kind of what that means in terms of maybe where you've seen some really great examples of what you consider to be a clear and compelling foundation vision.

SPEAKER_00 32:14

Yeah, no, absolutely. Um and in the report I've given some really good examples. I've got it in front of me, but uh one from the Solidaire Network, which uh is a network of individual philanthropists, they talk about um we envision a world where racism, economic exploitation, and disregard for the well-being of the planet no longer destroys whole communities to benefit a few. A world where all people have power to shape the decisions that affect their lives and to flourish. So it's very, very specific about naming the causes and talking about what it wants to see. And there's another one here from Common Council, which talks about we envision a role for philanthropy which resets the power dynamic from adhering to norms to agitating for social change and working in allegiance to social movements that are the true drivers of transformative change. So it's incredibly specific, it's incredibly it paints a really compelling vision. You can kind of immediately grasp, ah, this is the space that they're in, and this is the narrative, and these are the, you know, this is the the vision that they're trying to build. Um whereas a lot of UK foundations, we are so generic in terms of saying, you know, uh we want world peace practically, which is you know, can mean anything to anyone and in many ways is unachievable. Um so being incredibly focused and specific on what you're trying to do as a funder, uh, I think is really important.

SPEAKER_01 33:48

And I wanted to ask how that relates to the question of sort of appetite for risk in foundations, because you know, we're often told that one of the real strengths of philanthropy and foundations in particular is that they can take risks that you know the state or the private sector can't take. And I, you know, I often sort of think in theory, yes, but you know, in practice, how much of that is actually happening. And and I wondered what your thoughts were on whether actually, you know, we sometimes assume that the broader an organization's mission is, you know, the easier that might be to take risks because you know there's fewer things tying their hands. But do you think it's the case that sort of slightly counterintuitively actually having a more specific vision gives people more license and confidence to take risks?

SPEAKER_00 34:29

Absolutely. I I'm leaning towards the view that the more broad you are, the less tangible effectiveness you will have. Um, and and the reason why I'm now leaning towards that view is because we cannot do all things to all people and you know be everything to everyone. Uh our resources are limited. And I think as a funder or a philanthropist, if I was advising anyone now, I would say choose your cause, be very specific about what bit of the wheel, the cog in the wheel, can you push and pull that would really bring about change in whatever you're interested in? So I think a good example of this actually is the ABC Charitable Trust, who of an incredibly small foundation, I think they only have maybe two staff. Um, and I spoke to them a couple of years ago, but they were set up, I think, by a family who had a legal history, barristers or or were involved in the legal system in some way. And through talking to them, we and and their philanthropy, we agreed that if they could just focus on the criminal justice system and nothing else, they could make huge inroads. And in the last few years, they've done really influential reports and research and exploration of the experience of different communities within the uh legal and judicial system, which I think has had a huge impact. And they're not well resourced, you know, compared to many foundations. So examples like that, examples like um I've seen in the US, I think have uh brought me to the viewpoint that actually the more targeted and focused and specific you are, uh the greater the chances that you'll be able to uh really bring about social change.

SPEAKER_01 36:24

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I I think I've sort of come around to the same view as well, which I do, as I say, find slightly counterintuitive, but actually once you, as you say, the the crucial realization is you just accepting that you can't do everything, no foundation can and no individual donor can. So you do have to make choices about where to focus, and that's fine. Um and actually it's better to do that. I I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the um the third stage of embodying. You mentioned there um the sort of three key things in it, and I want to pick up in particular on the foundation support for movement building, um, because I know that's a topic we're both very, very interested in. Um, but before we do that, um maybe if you could sort of expand a little bit first on what it means for funders to take a community-centric and intersectional view of issues and why it's important.

SPEAKER_00 37:13

Yeah, um, I mean, any type of philanthropy which is working uh with communities, you know, I've come to the view that it needs to be led by the communities. And the approach that I saw with US funders was a an approach where they were stepping back from the issues and letting communities decide where the funding went, how it was spent, um, you know, what the movement was, um, and it was becoming really, really effective. Um, and I think you know, we have to recognize I'm not an expert in um building uh community change in a local area in Luton. And this is the thing that I always struggled with, even when with my previous role as a CEO of a community foundation, you know, it just seemed ludicrous to me that I could make a decision about an area of Luton, for example, Marsh Farm, where I'd never lived, I had no experience of. Um, you know, it just seemed common sense and logical that I would give that decision-making power to those communities who live in the area and who know and understand the relationships and dynamics and who's doing what. Um, and I and that's where we we need to recognize our expertise. I think I'm an expert in terms of philanthropy, and I can talk to you about philanthropy for a long time. But particular communities, particular issues, we need to go directly to those communities because that's where I think you will see the most effective change. And intersectionality is really important. And I I remember one of the foundations that I was speaking to, they talked about the fact that they had moved away from having programmatic areas. So previously they would have a program in relation to uh women and girls, and then they would have another program in relation to mental health, and another one in relation to uh violence, for example. And they said that just doesn't reflect the real world. The real world, you know, you will see all of these issues intertwined and connected, you can't separate them into neat programs. Um, and so they they went and did away with all their programs and just said, these are the areas that we're interested in, you know, in a in a general way. If your uh activity or program or project touches on one of these aspects, send us um you know an application form. So uh I think we quite often create these false boundaries between issues which don't reflect the way that society works. And I think we just need to get to the point where we recognize intersectionality. And interestingly, I'm uh on this very point. Um, I've organized a conference for funders uh where we're talking about the intersection of poverty and mental health, um, and recognizing that those two things are irretrievably connected. If you're suffering from financial difficulties, the impact on your mental health is going to be profound. And the other way as well, if you're dealing with mental health issues, that may affect your job, that may affect your financial position. So these false boundaries that we create between societal issues, I don't think are helpful or in fact are hindering the sector. Um so it's it's something that I just think is really, really critical for funders to start understanding.

SPEAKER_01 40:39

Yeah, absolutely. I want to come back in a second to sort of some of the practical implications of that in terms of how funders fund and things like you know, whether it m adds more weight to the arguments for core cost funding and what it means in terms of things like measurement. Um, but just to add in the bit about movement um building and support for social movements as as well, um, which I said we wanted to come back to specifically. Why for you is that such a crucial element of foundations taking a kind of transformative approach uh in their philanthropy? Um, what what is it about movements that you think offers possibilities maybe above and beyond those of the traditional charity or non-profit sector?

SPEAKER_00 41:20

I think um recent history paints a compelling picture. And I think the thing that mortifies me the most about belonging in philanthropy or working in philanthropy is the fact that institutional philanthropy was not involved in the catalyzation of these huge global movements like Black Lives Matter, uh, Me Too, the climate justice movement. They were all started by individuals, grassroots communities coming together in a really fluid, you know, in a fluid networked way to build a movement. And they created social change, which you know we haven't seen for 50 years or so. So I to me, those movements were so powerful in shifting narratives, the you know, the Me Too movement in terms of how women are treated and you know, really bringing the experiences of women to the fore and explaining this is what our experiences are of being a woman and being in these situations. Um and they changed narratives, they changed perceptions, they brought people together in a really powerful and compelling way around causes, which I think you know none of institutional philanthropy has been able to do in the last 40-50 years. So for me, they've demonstrated that social change is possible and it can happen, but whether or not it can happen through institutional philanthropy, I think there's a real question because I think we are set up in a particular model, in that Victorian model, and we're set up, the majority of us will only fund other institutions, and we're losing out on this wealth of individuals who work in fluid ways and you know uh are connected and um speak to each other and build a narrative and build a movement in ways that institutions can't. Um so for me, institutional philanthropy, I would say if we really want to be effective in all of the things that we say, we have to start thinking about movement building.

SPEAKER_01 43:24

Yeah, that's and and I guess that brings us on to some of the practical implications. So for for you then, is are some of the elements of that um that it's important maybe to for foundations to become more open to the idea of funding individuals and potentially funding things that have a much less clear immediate outcome or at least one that can't necessarily be attributed to your intervention and and also you know changing the way you think about measurements and all that kind of thing.

SPEAKER_00 43:54

Absolutely, absolutely. And I think you know this comes to the heart of the question of existence of uh the Of institutional philanthropy and the question of ego, you know, if we have to move from a model where we're not trying to take the credit and it's not important for us to take the credit, if we can shift our mindset to actually, this is for the long term, I might not see the change in my lifetime or in my job term, but we're investing for something which is bigger than us, and we're paying a part within a small part within a bigger ecosystem, then I think we'll start to see some fundamental shift. And I think the way that we're set up now, where we are focused on attribution, on measuring income impact, on measuring outcomes, all of that is not conducive to working in this new way with people who are changing the world. And so a lot of the US funders that I was working with, they fund individuals. They identify and recognize individuals who are influencing change, who are bringing about social change, and they facilitate their growth and nurture them and give them whatever they need, terms of income, housing, whatever, in order to let them flourish and let them lead the movement.

SPEAKER_01 45:17

Yeah, absolutely. Maybe that brings us on to one of the questions I wanted to ask about the fourth stage, which is building, where you said already, you know, an important part of that is for foundations to move towards being much more sort of cross-sectoral and multi-dimensional. And I guess one of the things that you know everyone who works in the sector knows is that there's a lot less of that happening than you might uh think, and a lot less sort of collaboration going on. Do you think that's also a reflection of the fact that the sort of the paradigm we have for foundation funding is one that's still very tied to here's a program, that you know, this is our intervention, we're going to attribute this to this outcome, and that's how we measure our success. And actually, if we get away from that, maybe it opens up more space for collaborating as well.

SPEAKER_00 46:02

Absolutely. Um, and I think uh collaboration in terms of working across sectors is really, really important. So the most ambitious programs that I saw had the private sector and the public sector and philanthropy working hand in hand. So, you know, huge housing projects in San Francisco were um set up and developed with the private sector. So whenever there's I think the most ambitious schemes uh were cross-sectoral that I saw. And that there's a recognition there again that philanthropy can just not do it on its own. But then, as well as that, I think the fact that funders are using an array of tools rather than just their funding, I think is also really, really interesting. So, you know, uh talking about storytelling, narrative change, um, you know, giving a platform to people, amplifying voices, filmmaking, all of those are tools that philanthropy could and should be using, especially in our, you know, sort of digital information age, where changing perceptions, uh, winning hearts and minds is so incredibly important. Um, you know, we've that's where traditional philanthropy has has not made an impact, but we could, we have the resources uh and capacity to do it. We don't have the skills, uh, but there are others that do. So I think that's some unexplored potential uh for all funders to think about in terms of how do they really leverage their platform and their assets.

SPEAKER_01 47:38

Yeah, absolutely. Um I'm aware I'm in danger of taking up altogether too much of your time. So um I have two more questions, although that's sneaky because they're both quite big questions.

SPEAKER_02 47:47

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 47:47

Um so the the first one, I did want to come back to this question around um the legacies of colonialism um and and what that means. And we talked about it before in the context of understanding the the challenges facing uh minoritised communities and the kind of racialised nature of poverty in the UK. I guess the the other bit, which we mentioned in passing before, is what that means for philanthropy and particularly some philanthropic funders themselves, when they might suspect that historically they have links to um uh wealth that has only come about through the proceeds of slavery or colonialism. What I'd be really interested in is your sense of kind of first of all, how that fits in in terms of your thinking about um about social justice philanthropy, and what you think those funders should be doing about it. You know, is it enough to acknowledge it and look into it? Or do they need to go beyond that and sort of think about some means of making reparation and what what does that look like?

SPEAKER_00 48:47

Gosh, that's a big question.

SPEAKER_01 48:48

I know, I said it was a good question.

SPEAKER_00 48:51

That's that's um actually one of the things that a lot of the US funders are grappling with. And I think there are some really good examples where foundations have done that exploration. So, first of all, let's, you know, all foundations and funders should be exploring the source of their wealth. That should be, you know, the first step in this process, um, rather than burying their head in the sand. Go on the exploration. And I think actually ACF recently uh developed uh a resource, or um, there was a webinar on looking at the origins of wealth, which I think is a huge shift, you know, for ACF to now be having that conversation. So that there's um the exploration, then there's the acknowledgement, which is incredibly important. And sometimes people don't understand the importance of acknowledgement. But in a time where you know we're having to debate whether or not institutional racism exists in the UK, um, to have an acknowledgement of past wrongdoing, past oppression, past suffering is incredibly important. Then the third stage, which some foundations are in now, is looking at what they uh need to do to counteract counteract um the wrongdoing of the past. Um and there are foundations like Joseph Roundtree, etc., who have who are doing that exercise. And I would say that they're the pioneers in the UK and they will make mistakes and they and they will have some successes. But I think what I've seen which encourages me is that where they have placed the decision making as to what happens next with people who are living with the legacy of those past uh atrocities, that's where I think we can bring about the greatest change. So rather than a trustee board deciding A, B, C, this is what we're going to do, having that conversation, having that consultation and giving that decision-making power over to those communities, I think is incredibly powerful. I think the question of reparations is um a lot more difficult. Um, and I think, particularly in the UK, that that's not a conversation because in the US, one of the biggest differences I saw, and we talked about this already in relation to histories, there is, you know, very widespread understanding of slavery, understanding of the genocide committed against uh Indigenous uh indigenous communities. Uh, you know, that's quite, uh although there's an attack on those fronts, it is quite well understood within uh uh the American context. We do just don't have that same uh level of understanding in relation to Britain's role uh with empire and with colonialism. Um it's something that is not readily understood, it is something that people shy away from discussing. Um it is something that has become um a lot more contentious to discuss. So I think we're just not in that place. My um hope is, and interestingly, when I went to the US, and my focus was going to be on reparative justice, but I don't think we're in the UK we're in a place where we're ready to have that conversation until we accept and um mainstream social justice. So the understanding of social justice must come first. So the understanding that there are systemic issues, um, that there you have to acknowledge your history, all of those things have to come first before you can then talk about reparative justice. So I think we're we're much further behind the curve compared to the US in that conversation.

SPEAKER_01 52:33

Yeah, and and absolutely you're right that it feels even in the last few weeks there's been a few things where it's been clear that there's much more of a pushback on the idea that we should accept, you know, that colonial you know, that the partially the legacy of Britain's wealth comes from slavery and colonialism. So it's obviously being dragged into that sort of polarised culture war uh arena. Um do you have time for my one final question? I do. You do. Okay. Um again, I won't pretend it's a small question, but it's one I really want to ask because I think it's kind of goes to something you said at the beginning um about seeing yourself as a gentle agitator. Um, and this is something I grapple with, so this is sort of partially um free therapy for me. But I guess what I wanted to know is, you know, in terms of that balance between pragmatism or incrementalism and and radicalism, how easy do you find it on a sort of day-to-day basis to maintain that that middle ground of sort of rolling up your sleeves and working with it? I mean, do you find some days you feel really positive and upbeat about philanthropy and then other days you kind of think, oh, you know, we should just burn it all to the ground and try something different?

SPEAKER_00 53:39

Uh yes, in short, and I think it's a it's a particular conundrum, specifically uh also for those from marginalized communities. So as a woman of colour working within a sector which um has not been set up with me in mind and where um there's a huge amount of explaining to do and foundational knowledge to get out before you can even have the more radical conversations, it is a s it is a struggle. And I think if you speak to uh I often speak to people of colour within philanthropy, that is the biggest conundrum is that you you know you really want to change the system, you really want to things make things fairer and more equitable, but at the same time, the system uh can be one which uh is not conducive to that. Um, and so how do you bring about change? And my uh realization is that you need both uh agitators within and outside the system, so you need uh scrutiny and transparency and accountability for those outside the system who can say, who can hold up a mirror and say you're not moving fast enough, you're not changing fast enough, and take that approach. But then you also need to bring people on a journey with you within philanthropy. I don't believe in finger pointing and in shaming people. I don't think that's how you bring about change. I think it's very easy to do, but it's not effective. Um, and so my philosophy is to work on the inside to try and shift, you know, as much by um influence and changing conversations um to get to that point where we start changing systems.

SPEAKER_01 55:26

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I totally agree because I find myself in the same space, and I always find talking to you makes me feel very kind of renews my enthusiasm. So I'm going to go away uh uplifted. Um before I finally let you go, I just want to check. I'll put links in the show notes, obviously, to places where people can find um the report and the workbook and um you know lots of uh of other things that are relevant to that. Is there anything else that you particularly want to direct people's attention to in terms of things that you've got coming up or things that you would particularly like them to do as an action?

SPEAKER_00 55:57

Uh reading the report and looking at the workbook, I would really love it if um grant-making teams, trustees, whoever's working within philanthropy uh takes the manual, has a read of it, but then looks at the workbook because the workbook poses questions which I think would be interesting for funders and foundations to test themselves with. So they're you know, they're it's not too onerous, but it it's just there as prompts. Um, so having that, having people use these as resources rather than think of um these at the report and the uh the manual as um an academic report, I think is is really, really important to me. But the other thing that I did want to say is really to thank you as well, because not only have you been a huge supporter of my work, but um you've you're hosting uh the report on your website, uh which I think is a perfect place for it. Um, and you've been instrumental in you know helping me with my thinking. So it would be remiss of me not to say thank you.

SPEAKER_01 56:58

Oh, well, thank you, Fosia. I I think in terms of the hosting, I like to think of it as uh being a bit like the one person in sick form who's got a car so that everybody suddenly makes friends with them because they've got a car. Um yeah, no, that's very kind, that's very kind of you, and it's it's an absolute delight as ever to get a chance to chat. Um and yeah, let's you know uh catch up uh at some point soon on another podcast um and we can kind of talk maybe about how you know philanthropy is entirely changed and we've transformed it in the UK.

SPEAKER_00 57:26

Oh, fingers crossed, fingers crossed. It's great to chat to you, Rodri.

SPEAKER_01 57:30

Yeah. Okay, well, my thanks again to Fozia for coming on the podcast. Um, as you can tell, it was absolutely lovely to have a chance to sit down and talk to her uh about uh transformative report uh philanthropy report um and more just generally to uh shoot the breeze about philanthropy. I'll put links in the show notes to places where you can get hold of the report itself uh and the accompanying workbook um and also um the uh blog that I did that Fosia mentioned on um the history of social justice philanthropy in the UK. Uh all of that's on the Why Philanthropy Matters website anyway, so you can dig around and find all of it. And whilst you're there, if you're interested more broadly in issues around philanthropy and civil society, do check out all the other stuff on there. There's lots of interesting articles, there's news updates about things that uh I've been doing, there's all the back issues of this podcast. So there's hours and hours of philanthrop entertainment to keep you occupied there. Um, if you want sort of shorter updates, you know, do follow me on social media. I'm uh primarily on LinkedIn at the moment. I'm still just about there on X and I'm on various other channels as well, um, but not really doing very much with those. So LinkedIn's probably the best place to look for me. If you've got ideas for topics we could cover on the podcast or people I could talk to, or you've just got the general suggestions about you know what you like and don't like about the podcast, do feel free to drop me a line. You can find the email address on the website. Other than that, just like, uh follow the podcast. Do tell people that you work with or you know your friends and family that you think might be interested about it, and point them to specific episodes that you think might pique their interest, because uh all of that stuff helps. Other than that, I will see you next time.

SPEAKER_02 59:22

Bye.